Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
WOODROW WILSON
BOUNDARY BETWEEN TURKEY AND ARMENIA
The publication of this book is sponsored by HYKSOS Foundation for the memory of General ANDRANIK – hero of the ARMENIAN NATION. Arbitral Award of the President of the United States of America Woodrow Wilson Full Report of the Committee upon the Arbitration of the Boundary between Turkey and Armenia. Washington, November 22nd, 1920. Prepared with an introduction by Ara Papian. Includes indices. Technical editor: Davit O. Abrahamyan ISBN 978-9939-50-160-4 Printed by “Asoghik” Publishing House Published in Armenia
www.wilsonforarmenia.org © Ara Papian, 2011. All rights reserved.
This book is dedicated
to all who support Armenia in their
daily lives, wherever they may live, with
the hope that the information contained in this book
will be of great use and value in advocating Armenia’s cause.
Woodrow Wilson (December 28, 1856 – February 3, 1924)
28th President of the United States of America
(March 4, 1913 – March 4, 1921)
ARBITRAL AWARD
OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
WOODROW WILSON
FULL REPORT OF THE COMMITTEE UPON THE ARBITRATION OF THE BOUNDARY BETWEEN
TURKEY AND ARMENIA WASHINGTON, NOVEMBER 22ND, 1920
PREPARED
with an introduction by
ARA PAPIAN
Yerevan – 2011
There was a time when every American schoolboy knew of Armenia, the entire proceeds of the Yale-Harvard Game (1916) were donated to the relief of “the starving Armenians,” and President Woodrow Wilson’s arbitration to determine the border between Armenia and Ottoman Turkey was seen as natural, given the high standing the 28th President enjoyed in the Old World. What is forgotten today is that Wilson’s Arbitral Award, according to the canons of international law, was “final and binding” on the parties to the Sèvres Treaty, despite the fact that Sèvres itself was later superseded by the Treaties of Lausanne. In this valuable volume, scholar-diplomat Ara Papian brings the facts of this matter back to life in a presentation that is sure to fascinate all who are concerned about the seemingly intractable issues surrounding Armenian-Turkish relations today.
John Marshall Evans U.S. Ambassador to Armenia, 2004-2006
From the almost “Forgotten Genocide” of 1915, to the much-neglected Treaty of Sevres of 1920, to the largely unknown Arbitral Award in the same year by American President Woodrow Wilson, the world in general, and Armenians and Turks in particular, need to better understand an important document in international relations history. Former Ambassador Ara Papian outlines and analyzes the potentially precedent-setting ruling that sought to give justice to the victims of the Armenian Genocide.
Alan Whitehorn Professor of Political Science, Royal Military College of Canada
Clearly, the question pointing to Turkish occupation of historical Armenian, Cyprian, Kurdish and Assyrian ancestral homelands is unfinished international business. As a global leader, Woodrow Wilson was party to a modern legal procedure that ended in multilateral and diplomatic shenanigans. Ambassador Ara Papian has argued a strong case for reexamining a legitimate arbitral process, which bears the signature of America’s 28th president that was duly administered, fairly resolved, but never executed.
Donald Wilson Bush President, The Woodrow Wilson Legacy Foundation
C o n t e n t s
Introduction by Ara Papian – The Arbitral Award on Turkish-Armenian
Boundary by Woodrow Wilson .............................................................................. i-xii
Full Report of the Committee upon the Arbitration of the Boundary
Between Turkey and Armenia ................................................................................ 1
Appendices to the Report of the Committee upon the Arbitration of the
Boundary Between Turkey and Armenia ............................................................... 90
Index of Personal Names ........................................................................................ 246
Comprehensive Index of Geographical Names ...................................................... 254
Index of Ethnic and Religious groups .................................................................... 290
Subject Index .......................................................................................................... 298
Color images and maps .......................................................................................... 306
i
THE ARBITRAL AWARD ON TURKISH-ARMENIAN BOUNDARY
BY WOODROW WILSON [Historical Background, Legal Aspects and International Dimensions]
Jus est ars boni et aequi (lat.)
(The law is the art of the good and the just) No other single issue has aroused as much passion and controversy and occupied the
attention of the present Armenian public and political life as the relationship with Turkey. The claims of Armenians for moral satisfaction, financial indemnification and territorial readjustment, remain the longest, most intractable, and potentially one of the most dangerous unsolved problems of international relations and world community of the modern times.
The emergence of the Armenian state, the Republic of Armenia, and its presence on the world political stage as the successor of the first Armenian Republic (1918-20), adds a critical dimension to the matter. The importance of this new dimension is based on the fact that, as a subject of international law, the Republic of Armenia is in full power and has all legal rights to pursue the implementation of the legal instruments and to insist on the fulfillment of international obligations assumed by the Turkish states (the Republic of Turkey or the Ottoman Empire) as a legal predecessor of the Turkish Republic.
One must analyze all relevant legal instruments, i.e. bilateral and multilateral treaties, Woodrow Wilson’s Arbitral Award, diplomatic documents and international papers, resolutions of international organizations, recommendations of special missions, decisions of law-determining agencies (particularly of the International Court of Justice), the opinions of authoritative institutions to clarify the legal state of Armenian-Turkish confrontation and determinate the legal aspects of the Armenian claims regarding Turkey.
Due to final and binding character of the arbitral awards, one should begin with the elaboration of the legal instruments, with the arbitral award of the President of the United States of America Woodrow Wilson (November 22, 1920).
Arbitration as a procedure for peaceful settlement of disputes between the States
Arbitration exists under both domestic and international law, and arbitration can be carried out between private individuals, between states, or between states and private individuals. Arbitration is a legal alternative to the courts whereby the parties in a dispute agree to submit their respective positions (through agreement or hearing) to a neutral third party – the arbitrator(s) for resolution.
International Public Arbitration (hereinafter – Arbitration) is an effective legal procedure for dispute settlement between the states.1 According to 1953 report of the International Law Commission,2 arbitration is a procedure for the settlement of disputes between States by a binding award on the basis of law and as a result of an undertaking voluntary accepted.3 The
1 Louis B. Sohn. The Role of Arbitration in Recent International Multinational Treaties. Virginia Journal of International Law 1983;23:171‐172.
2 International Law Commission Yearbook, Doc. A/2436, 1953, II: 202. 3 Shabtai Rosenne. The Law and Practice of the International Court, 1920‐1996 (3rd ed.), vol. I (The Court and the United Nations), The Hague‐Boston‐London, 1997:11; A Dictionary of Arbitration and its Terms (Katharine Seide, ed.), NY, 1970: 126.
ii
essential elements of Arbitration consist of: 1) An agreement on the part of States having a matter, or several matters, in dispute, to refer the decision of them to a tribunal, believed to be impartial, and constituted in such a way as the terms of the agreement specify, and to abide by its judgment; and 2) Consent on the part of the person, persons, or states, nominated for the tribunal, to conduct the inquiry and to deliver judgment.4
Arbitration has been practiced already in antiquity and in the middle ages. The history of modern arbitration is usually considered to begin with the treaty of arbitration between Great Britain and the United States of 1794 (Jay’s Treaty – Treaty of Amity, Commerce and Naviga-tion, between His Britannic Majesty and the United States of America, by their President, Signed on 19 November, 1794, ratified on June 24, 1795).5 The rules of arbitration were codified by The Hague Convention for the Pacific Settlement of International Disputes, concluded on July 29, 1899 and very slightly amended in the Convention of the same name concluded on October 18, 1907 (entered into force January 26, 1910). The Hague Convention (Article 15 of 1899 and article 37 of 1907) defines international arbitration as: the settlement of disputes between States by judges of their own choice and on the basis of respect of law.6
The Covenant of the League of Nations (Article 13) provides arbitration and judicial settlement as one of two major procedures of peaceful settlements: The Members of the League agree that whenever any dispute shall arise between them which they recognize to be suitable for submission to arbitration and which cannot be satisfactorily settled by diplomacy they will submit the whole subject-matter to arbitration.7
The Charter of the United Nations (Article 33, paragraph 1) expresses its preference for a dispute settlement through arbitration: The parties in any dispute, the continuance of which is likely to endanger the maintenance of international peace an security, shall, first of all, seek a solution by negotiation, enquiry, mediation, conciliation, arbitration, judicial settlement, resort to regional agencies or arrangements, or other peaceful means of their own choice.
The Historical Background of Wilson’s Arbitration
On January 19, 1920, the Supreme Council of the Principal Allied and Associated Powers in Paris (Prime Ministers of Great Britain, France and Italy; respectively Lloyd George, Clemenceau and Nitti)8 agreed to recognize the government of the Armenian State as a de facto government on the condition that the recognition should not prejudge the question of the eventual frontier.9 The United States recognized the de facto government of the Republic of Armenia on April 23, 1920,10 on the condition that the territorial frontiers should be left for later determination.11
On April 26, 1920, the Supreme Council (including this time the Japanese Ambassador to Paris Matsui as well) meeting at San Remo requested: a) The United States to assume 4 Sheldon Amos. Political and Legal Remedies for War. London‐Paris‐ New York, 1880:164‐165. 5 Manual of Public International Law (Max Sorensen, ed.), NY, 1968:584. 6 The Hague Court Reports (James Brown Scott, ed.), NY, 1916:LVI‐LVII. 7 Manual of Public International Law, op. cit.: 717. 8 Arnold J. Toynbee, Survey of International Affairs (1920‐1923), London, 1925:9. 9 G.H. Hackworth. Digest of International Law, Turkish‐Armenian Boundary Question, v. I, Washington, 1940:715.
10 The United States recognized the independence of Armenia, but refused to recognize that of Georgia and Azerbaijan. (H. Lauterpacht. Recognition in International Law. Cambridge, 1947:11. Papers Relating to Foreign Relations of the United States, 1920, v. III, Washington, 1936:778, hereinafter – FRUS).
11 G.H. Hackworth: op. cit.: 715.
iii
mandate over Armenia; b) The President of the United States to make an Arbitral Decision to fix the boundaries of Armenia with Turkey:12 The Supreme Council hopes that, however the American Government may reply to the wider matter of the Mandate, the President will undertake this honourable duty not only for the sake of the country chiefly concerned but for that of the peace of the Near East.13
On May 17, 1920, the Secretary of State informed the American Ambassador in France that the President had agreed to act as arbitrator.14 In mid-July the State Department began to assemble a team of experts for the assignment: The Committee upon the Arbitration of the Boundary between Turkey and Armenia. The Boundary Committee was headed by Professor William Westermann; his key associates were Lawrence Martin and Harrison G. Dwight. As the Treaty of Sevres was signed on August 10, 1920, The Boundary Committee began its deliberations.
The guidelines adopted by the committee were to draw the southern and western boundaries of Armenia on the basis of a combination of ethnic, religious, economic, geographic, and military factors. The Committee had at its disposal all the papers of The American Peace Delegation and The Harbord Mission, the files of the Department of State, War, and Interior, and the cartological services of the United Stares Geological Survey. Aside from the advice of experts in government service and direct consultations with General Harbord, The Committee sought input of missionaries and others with field experience who could give detailed information about the ethnic makeup of particular villages near the border; the roads and markets connecting certain villages, towns, and cities, and specific physical landmarks.
The Full Report of the Committee upon the Arbitration of the Boundary between Turkey and Armenia was submitted to the Department of State on September 28, 1920, five months after the Allied Supreme Council’s invitation to President Wilson.15 The Report defined the area submitted for arbitration, the sources available to and used by The Committee, the principles and bases on which the work had proceeded, the need for the inclusion of Trebizond to guarantee unimpeded access to the sea, the desirability of demilitarization frontier line, the character of the resulting Armenian state, the immediate financial outlook of Armenia, and the existing political situation in the Near East. The seven appendices of the report included the documents relative to the arbitration, the maps used in drawing the boundaries, issue of Kharput, the question of Trebizond, the status of the boundary between Turkey and Persia, the military situation in relation to Armenia, and the financial position of those parts of the four vilayets (provinces) assigned to Armenia.
Insofar as the four provinces in question were concerned, the key factors were geography, economy, and ethnography. Historic and ethical considerations were passed over. The committee tried to draw boundaries in which the Armenian element, when combined with the inhabitants of the exiting state in Russian Armenia, would constitute almost half of total population and within few years from an absolute majority in nearly all districts. Such calculations took into account the wartime deportations and massacres of the Armenians, Muslim losses during the war, as well as the probability that some part of the remaining Muslim population would take advantage of the provisions of the peace
12 The Treaties of Peace, 1919‐1923 (Preface by Lt.‐Col. Lawrence Martin). v. I, New York, 1924:XXXII. 13 FRUS: 780. 14 Ibid: 783. 15 For the Full Report with relative materials, see US Archives, General Records of the Department of State
(Decimal file, 1910‐1920), RG 59, RG 59, 760J.6715/65.
iv
treaty regarding voluntary relocation to territories that were to be left to Turkey or to an autonomous Kurdistan.
The Territory that was being allocated to Armenia by arbitration (40,000 square miles = 103,599 square kilometers) was less than half of the territory (108,000 square miles = 279,718 square kilometers), which in Ottoman, as well as in all non-ottoman, sources and maps throughout centauries had largely been identified as Ermenistan (Armenia, as the historical title)16 and since 187817 was the holder of the legal title Armenia or The Six Armenian vilayets (provinces), as was defined in the Article 24 of the Mudros Armistice.18 It should be underlined that the territory was referred just as The six Armenian vilayets not The six Armenian vilayets of the Ottoman Empire.
The drastic cutback of the territory for Armenians was due to far-reaching reduction of native Armenian population because of the Turkish policy of annihilation of Armenians: The Armenian provisions of the Sevres Treaty were agreed upon by the Powers after due consideration of the facts that Turkish Armenia was empted of its Armenian inhabitants.19
The committee made calculations, based on prewar statistics, that the population of the territories to be included in the new Armenian state had been 3,570,000 of whom Muslims (Turks, Kurds, “Tartar” Azerbaijanis, and others) had formed 49%, Armenians 40%, Lazes 5%, Greeks 4%, and other groups 1%. It was anticipated that large numbers of Armenian refugees and exiles would return to an independent Armenia. Hence, after the first year of repatriation and readjustment, the population of the Armenian Republic would be around 3 million, of whom Armenians would make up 50%, Muslims 40%, Lazes 6%, Greeks 3%, and other groups 1%. The rise in the absolute number and proportion of Armenians was expected to increase steadily and rapidly in subsequent years.20
Even though Westermann’s boundary committee submitted its findings to the Department of State on September 28, 1920, two more months were to pass before President Wilson relayed his arbitration decision to the Allied governments. The State Department: 1) sent the committee’s report to the War Department for its observations, and 2) requested through Ambassador Hugh Wallace in Paris formal notification from the Allied Supreme Council about the signing of the Treaty of Sevres and an authenticated copy of the document.21 It was only on November 12, 1920, that The Committee’s Report was finally delivered to the White House.
Ten days later, on November 22, 1920,22 Woodrow Wilson signed the final Report, titled: Decision of the President of the United States of America respecting the Frontier between Turkey and Armenia, Access for Armenia to the Sea, and the Demilitarization of Turkish Territory adjacent to the Armenian Frontier. 23
The Full Report of the Committee upon the Arbitration of the Boundary between Turkey and Armenia (The Report – 89 pages, and Appendices to the Report – 152 pages) consists of ten chapters: 16 The notion of an historic title is well known in international law. Historic title is a title that has been so long
established by common repute that this common knowledge is itself a sufficient title. 17 See Article 16, Treaty of San Stefano, March 3, 1878; cf. also: Gustave Rolin‐Jaequemyns, Armenia and
Armenians in the Treaties, London 1891. 18 Diplomacy in the Near and Middle East, 1914‐56 (J.C. Hurewitz, ed.) v. II, New Jersey, 1956:37. 19 Vahan Cardashian. Armenian Independence. New York Times, March 30, 1922:93. 20 R. Hovannisian. The Republic of Armenia, Between Crescent and Sickle. Partition and Sovetization. v. IV,
Berkeley, 1996:37. 21 Ibid: 40. 22 Cukwurah A. The Settlement of Boundary Disputes in International Law. Manchester, 1967:165‐166. 23 Ibid: 31; Hackworth, op. cit.: 715.
v
1. Chapter I. The Request for the Arbitral Decision of President Wilson, pp. 1-3. (An overview of the Pre-Arbitration Process).
2. Chapter II. Strict Limitations of the Area Submitted to the Arbitration of President Wilson, pp. 4-6. (Definition of the area submitted for arbitration).
3. Chapter III. Sources of Information Available to the Committee Formulating this Report, pp. 7-9. (The sources available to and used by the committee).
4. Chapter IV. Factors Used as the Basis of the Boundary Decision, pp. 10-15. (The principles and bases on which the work had proceeded).
5. Chapter V. The Necessity of Supplying an Unimpeded Sea Terminal in Trebizond Sandjak, pp. 16-23. (The need for the inclusion of Trebizond in the new Armenian state).
6. Chapter VI. Provisions for Demilitarization of Adjacent Turkish Territory, pp. 24-36. (The desirability of demilitarization frontier line).
7. Chapter VI. Covering Letter of the President Wilson to the Supreme Council and the Arbitral Decision of President Wilson, pp. 38-65. (The Arbitral Award of the President with attached letter).
8. Chapter VIII. Area, Population and Economic Character of the New State of Armenia, pp. 66-73. (The character of the resulting Armenian state).
9. Chapter IX. The Present Political Situation in the Near East, pp. 74-83. (The existing political state of affairs in the Near East).
10. Chapter X. Immediate Financial Outlook of the Republic of Armenia, pp. 84-86. (The financial prospect of Armenia).
Maps: Boundary between Turkey and Armenia as determined by Woodrow Wilson President, President of the United States of America, November 22, 1920:
Scale – 1: 1,000,000. Scale – 1: 200,000 (19 sheets).
The seven appendices of the report included:
Appendix I. Documents upon the Request for the Arbitral Decision. No. 1. Allied Recognition of Armenia, January 19, 1920. No. 2. Report of London Technical Commission, February 24, 1920. No. 3. Note from the French Ambassador at Washington, March 12, 1920. No. 4. Mr. Colby’s Reply to the above, March 24, 1920. No. 5. American Recognition of Armenia, April 23, 1920. No. 6-10. Telegrams from San Remo, April 24-27, 1920. No. 11. The President’s Acceptance of the Invitation to Arbitrate, May 17, 1920.
Appendix II. (Is not available). Appendix III. Maps Used in Determining the Actual Boundaries of the Four Vilayets
and in Drawing the frontier of Armenia. Appendix IV. The Question of Kharput. Discussion of the Possibility of Including
Kharput in the Boundary Decision. Appendix V. The Necessity of supplying an Unimpeded Sea Terminal in Trebizond
Sandjak. No. 1. Economic Position of Ports in the Trebizond Vilayet. No. 2. Railroad Project for Turkish Armenia before the War (Karshut Valley). No. 3. M. Venizelos’ Statement on Trebizond before the Council of Ten (February 4, 1919). No. 4. M. Venizelos’ Statement on Trebizond before the Greek Parliament (May 13, 1920). No. 5. The Petition of the Pontic Greeks (July 10, 1920). No. 6. The Greeks of Pontus (Population Estimates for Trebizond Vilayet).
vi
No. 7. General Discussion of Armenia’s Access to the Sea. No. 8. Text of the Armenian Minorities Treaty. No. 9. The Petition to President Wilson from the Armenian Delegation.
Appendix VI. (Is not available). Appendix VII. Status of the Old Boundary between Turkey and Persia, at the Point where
the Boundary Between Turkey (Autonomous Area of Kurdistan) and Armenia Joins it. Appendix VIII. (Is not available). Appendix IX. Military Situation with Relation to Armenia. Estimate for August, 1920. Appendix X. Financial Position of the Portion of the Four Vilayets Assigned to the New
State of Armenia.
M A P S 1. Boundaries of Armenia, as proposed by the London Inter-Allied Commission of
February 1920 (See Appendix I, No. 2). 2. Armenian Claims (See Appendix IV).
Original Claim of the Armenian National Delegation at the Peace Conference; Reduced Claim of the two Armenian Delegations, since January, 1920; Boundary established by President Wilson’s Decision.
3. Claims of the Pontic Greeks (See Appendix V, Nos. 3, 4, 5). Original Claim at Peace Conference; Reduced Claim, 1920; Greek Territory in Thrace and in Smyrna District Boundary established by President Wilson's Decision.
4. Armenia's Routes of Access to the Sea (See Appendix V, Nos. 2, 4, 9). Trebizond-Erzerum Caravan Route; Trebizond-Erzerum Railway Project; Western frontier Essential to Armenia.
5. Armenia in Relation to the new Turkish Empire (See Appendix IX). Frontiers of Turkey as established by the Treaty of Sèvres and by President Wilson’s Decision; Areas of Especial Interest as established by the Tripartite Convention of August 10, 1920, between Great Britain, France and Italy; Existing Railways.
In the cover letter to the Supreme Council, Wilson wrote: With full consciousness of
the responsibility placed upon me by the request, I have approached this difficult task with eagerness to serve the best interests of the Armenian people as well as the remaining inhabitants, of whatever race or religious belief they may be, in this stricken country, attempting to exercise also the strictest possible justice toward the populations, whether Turkish, Kurdish, Greek or Armenian, living in the adjacent areas.24
The text of the Arbitration Decision, reasonably not The Full Report, was cabled to Ambassador Wallace in Paris on November 24, 1920, with instructions that it should be handed to the Secretary General of the Peace Conference for submission to the Allied Supreme Council.25 Wallace responded on December 7, 1920, that he had delivered the documents that morning. Wallace’s attached note was dated December 6, 1920.
24 For the full text of Wilson’s letter see: FRUS, v. III: 790‐795. 25 Ibid.: 789‐90.
vii
So under the Arbitral Award of November 22, 1920, the boundary between Armenia and Turkey was settled conclusively and Turkish-Armenian international boundary was subsequently delimited,26 as clearly states The Hague Convention27 (article 54 of the 1899; article 81 of the 1907): The Award, duly pronounced and notified to the agents of the parties, settles [puts an end to] the dispute definitively and without appeal.28
The Validity of the Arbitral Award
For the Arbitral Award to be valid it must meet certain criteria: 1. The arbitrators must not have been subjected to any undue external influence such
as coercion, bribery or corruption; 2. The production of proofs must have been free from fraud and the proofs produced
must not have contained any essential errors; 3. The compromis must have been valid; 4. The arbitrators must not have exceeded their powers.29 Criterion 1. The arbitrators must not have been subjected to any undue external
influence such as coercion, bribery or corruption. In Armenian-Turkish boundary case the arbitrator, as was agreed in the compromis, (i.e.
Article 89, the Treaty of Sevres) was the President of the United States, namely Woodrow Wilson. President Wilson was often challenged for his policy and had various disagreements with other politicians and political bodies. Nevertheless, never has anyone questioned his political or personal integrity and he was never blamed acting under external influence.
Conclusion: It is apparent and doubtless that the arbitrator have not been subjected to any undue external influence, to coercion, bribery or corruption.
Criterion 2. The production of proofs must have been free from fraud and the proofs produced must not have contained any essential errors.
As mentioned above, the assignment the State Department organized (mid-July 1920) a special task group, which was officially named: Committee upon the Arbitration of the Boundary between Turkey and Armenia.
The head of The Committee was William Linn Westermann, professor of the University of Wisconsin and Columbia University (1923-48), a prominent expert in the history and politics of the Near and Middle East. In 1919 he had been the chief of the Western Asia division of the American Commission to Negotiate Peace in Paris.30 The principal collaborators and contributors in the committee were Major (Dr.) Lawrence Martin of the Army General Staff, who had participated as the geographer of the Harbord Mission, and Harrison G. Dwight of the Near Eastern division of the Department of State.31
All experts in the task group were knowledgeable, experienced and impartial professionals. After over two months of intensive and thorough work, at the end of September 1920, the task group produced a Full Report of the Committee upon the Arbitration of the Boundary between Turkey and Armenia.
26 Cukwurah A.O. op. cit.: 31. Hackworth. op., cit.: 715. 27 The 1899 Convention was ratified by Turkey on July 12, 1907. (The Hague Court Reports, op. cit.: CII). 28 The Hague Court Reports, op. cit.: LXXXIX. Cf. also the Article # 54 of the 1899 Convention with slightly
deferent wording: The Award, duly pronounced and notified to the agents of the parties [at variance, puts an end to] the dispute definitively and without appeal.
29 Manual of the Terminology of Public International Law (Lack of Peace) and International Organizations, Prepared by Isaac Paenson in Cooperation with the Office of Legal Affairs, UN, 1st ed., 1983: 588‐590.
30 R. Hovannisian, op. cit., v. IV: 30. 31 Ibid.
viii
The Report was sent to the War Department for its observations on September 28, 1920. After seven weeks of comprehensive and scrupulous observations the committee’s report was finally delivered to the White House on November 12, 1920. Ten days later, on November 22, 1920, Woodrow Wilson signed the final report, and officially delivered the award through the US Embassy in Paris on December 6, 1920.
President Wilson’s Award is highly regarded by international lawyers at present. Cf.: President Wilson’s arbitral decision was not implemented. Nevertheless, this award must be regarded as one of the most significant analyses of the various factors that have to be taken into account in the determination of international boundaries and of the relationship among them.32 Cf. also: President Wilson’s determination of the territorial frontiers of the newly established Armenian State is particularly interesting because its includes an explanation of the reasons motivating it: the need for a “natural frontier”; “geographical and economic unity for the new state”; ethic and religious factors of the population were taken account of so far as compatible; security, and the problem of access to the sea, were other important conditions.33
Conclusion: The Arbitral Award was drawn by respectful and well-informed experts, and, in addition, passed through the United States Government’s two relevant department’s scrutiny and inspection. It is obvious that the State Department and the Department of War were capable of excluding any fraud or to notice any essential error in the production of proofs. Finally the award was signed by the US President, who would never tolerate any misconduct.
Criterion 3. The compromis must have been valid. There are several factors that prove the validity of the compromis. Factor a) The compromis was duly incorporated in the treaty. The consent of States to submit a dispute to arbitration may be expressed in different
ways: a) by a special arbitration treaty or compromis; b) by the inclusion in any treaty of a special arbitration clause providing for arbitration of any dispute between the parties, which might arise in connection with the application of that treaty; c) by a general treaty of arbitration according to which the parties undertake to submit to arbitration all, or certain kinds, of disputes between them which might arise in the future.34
The consent of Armenia and Turkey, as well as of other High Contracting Parties to submit to the arbitration of the President of the United States the determination the question of frontier to be fixed between Turkey and Armenia, and to be bound by the award to accept his decision thereupon was done by the inclusion of a special arbitration clause in the Treaty of Sevres (August 10, 1920), [Article 89]: Turkey and Armenia as well as the other High Contracting Parties agree to submit to the arbitration of the President of the United States of America the question of the frontier to be fixed between Turkey and Armenia in the Vilayets of Erzerum, Trebizond, Van and Bitlis, and to accept his decision thereupon , as well as any stipulations he may prescribe as to access for Armenia to the sea, and as to the demilitarization of any portion of Turkish territory adjacent to the said frontier. 35
32 Yahuda Z. Blum. Secure Boundaries and Middle East Peace, In Light of International Law and Practice.
Jerusalem, 1971:26. 33 A.L.W. Munkman, “Adjudication and Adjustment – International Judicial Decision and the Settlement of
Territorial and Boundary Disputes”, Malcolm N. Show (ed.), Title to Territory, Dartmouth, 2005: 139, fn. 4. 34 Manual of the Terminology of Public International Law, op. cit.: 586. 35 The official full text of the Treaty of Sevres was published in British and Foreign State Papers, 1920. v.
CXIII, printed and published by His Majesty’s Stationary Office, London, 1923: 652‐776 (hereinafter ‐ British Papers) and separately, as Command Paper # 964, Treaty Series No. 11 (1920), Treaty of Peace with Turkey, signed at Sevres, August 10, 1920, HMSO, London, 1920, 100 pages.
ix
Factor b) The compromis was duly negotiated. In a joint note, on April 20, 1920, the Allied High Commissioners in Istanbul
summoned the Turkish authorities to send a Peace Delegation to receive the draft peace treaty. The Ottoman delegation, headed by Senator Tevfik Pasha (Bey) [former Grand Vezier] left for Paris in May 1, 1920.36 Ten days later, on May 11, it was formally given the draft peace treaty. Turkish Government was accorded one month to submit in writing any observations or objections it might have relative to the treaty.37 Tevfik Bey officially acknowledged the receipt of the treaty and pronounced that the document would be given the earnest and immediate attention of his government.38 At the end of May, Damad Ferid, the Grand Vezier of Turkey, applied to the Supreme Council for one-month extension in presenting the Turkish observations on the settlement. The Supreme Council compromised by granting a 2-week extension until June 25, 1920.39
The first set of Turkish observations, bearing the signature of Damad Ferid Pasha, was submitted on June 25, 1920. On July 7 second Turkish memorandum was received. In adopting a reply Supreme Council authorized the drafting committee to make minor revisions on the wording of the treaty without altering the substance.40 Regarding the future of Armenia and the arbitration of the boundaries, the Supreme Council stated: they can make no change in the provisions which provide for the creation of a free Armenia within boundaries which the President of the United States will determine as fair and just.41 The certitude that Armenians will not be safe and will not be treated fairly by Turkish authorities was based on lifelong understanding that: During the past twenty years Armenians have been massacred under conditions of unexampled barbarity, and during the war the record of the Turkish Government in massacre, in deportation and in maltreatment of prisoners of war immeasurably exceeded even its own previous record (…) Not only has the Turkish government failed to protect its subjects of other races from pillage, outrage and murder, but there is abundant evidence that it has been responsible for directing and organizing savagery against people to whom it owed protection.42
The Allied response was delivered to the Turkish delegation on July 17, 1920. Factor c) The compromis was signed by authorized representatives of a lawful
government. In 1918-1922, Sultan-Caliph Memed VI was the head of the Ottoman Empire,
politically recognized legitimate ruler.43 Sultan represents the de jure Government.44 Pursuant to article 3 of the Ottoman constitution [December 23, 1876; July 23, 1908]: The Ottoman sovereignty (…) belongs to the eldest Prince of the House of Ottomans. Treaty making power was vested in the Sultan. The Sultan had the sole power to legislate.45 Among the sovereign rights of the Sultan (the Ottoman Constitution, article 7) was the conclusion of the treaties. 36 R. Hovannisian, op. cit., v. III: 106. 37 Herbert Adams Gibbons. An Introduction to World Politics. New York, 1922:430; Paul C. Helmreich. From Paris
to Sevres. Ohio, 1974:309. 38 British Papers, v. XIII: 70. 39 Ibid: 79. 40 Ibid, v. VIII: 553‐556. 41 Ibid. 42 Ibid. 43 Arnold J. Toynbee, Kenneth P. Kirkwood. Turkey, New York, 1927:151. 44 Harold Armstrong. Turkey in Travail, The Birth of a New Nation. London, 1925:113. 45 [Lord] Eversley. The Turkish Empire, From 1288 to 1914, and From 1914 to 1924 (Abridged version by Sir
Valentine Chirol). Lahore, 1958:295.
x
On July 22, 1920, Sultan Mehmed VI, the constitutional head of the state, convened a Suray-i Saltanat (Crown Council), at the Yildiz Palace. The argument for signature was based on the necessities of the situation. The Council, which was attended by fifty prominent Turkish political and military figures, including former ministers, senators and generals, as well as by Prime Minister Damad Ferid Pasha, recommended in favor of signing the treaty. The Sultan rounded up the proceedings by asking those in favor of signature to stand up. Everybody but one stood up. The Treaty was accepted.46 The final treaty, including the arbitral clause [Article 89] was signed by Turkish plenipotentiaries [General Haadi Pasha, Senator; Riza Tevfik Bey, Senator; Rechad Haliss Bey, Envoy Extraordinary and Minister Plenipotentiary of Turkey at Berne] sent by the Sultan’s Government at Constantinople under the leadership of Damad Ferid Pasha.47
Conclusion: The compromis was valid. Criterion 4. The arbitrators must not have exceeded their powers. The compromis [Article 89 of the Sevres Treaty] asked the arbitrator: 1) to fix the
frontier between Turkey and Armenia in the Vilayets of Erzerum, Trebizond, Van and Bitlis, 2) to provide access for Armenia to sea, 3) to prescribe stipulations for the demilitarization of Turkish territory adjacent to the Turkish-Armenian frontier.
President Woodrow Wilson strictly remained within the assignment, which has been prescribed by compromis. Even there was a strong pressure on him by missionary groups to include town of Kharput and vicinities in the future Republic of Armenia, but Wilson did not exceed his powers.
Conclusion: The official title of President Wilson’s decision clearly shows that he accurately fulfilled his duty. Legal Features and the Current Status of the Award
a) Though the arbitration mainly is done out of courts, but it is a legal procedure. The arbitration is based either upon contract law or, in the case of international arbitration, the law of treaties, and the agreement between the parties to submit their dispute to arbitration is a legally binding contract. Thus, the indispensable feature of arbitration is that it produces an award that is final and binding: The arbitral award is the final and binding decision by an arbitrator in the full settlement of a dispute.48 By agreeing to submit the dispute to arbitration, i.e. compromis,49 the parties in advance agree to accept the decision.50
b) Pursuant to Article 89 of the Treaty of Sevres, the arbitral clause was endorsed by the other High Contracting Parties, so the issue of determination of the boundary was submitted to the arbitration on behalf of all state-signatories of the Treaty of Sevres as well. As the Treaty of Sevres was signed by lawful representatives (having communicated their full powers, found in good and due form) of the 18 countries (The British Empire [separately] 1. United Kingdom, 2. Canada, 3. Australia, 4. New Zealand, 5. Union of South Africa, 6. India,51 7. France, 8. Italy and 9. Japan [as Principal Allied Powers], as
46 Salahi Ramsdan Sonyel. Turkish Diplomacy 1918‐1923, Mustafa Kemal and the Turkish National Movement.
London, 1975: 82 47 A. Toynbee, K. Kirkwood, op. cit.: 76; Elaine Diana Smith. Origins of the Kemalist Movement and the
Government of the Grand National Assembly (1919‐1923). The American University, Washington D.C., 1959, (Ph.D. thesis): 133.
48 A Dictionary of Arbitration and its Terms, op. cit.: 32. 49 The compromis is the arbitration agreement between sovereign States, which empowers them to arbitrate an
existing dispute. (A Dictionary of Arbitration and its Terms, op. cit.: 54) 50 Ibid: 27. 51 At present: India, Pakistan and Bangladesh.
xi
well as by 10. Armenia, 11. Belgium, 12. Greece, 13. Poland, 14. Portugal, 15. Romania, 16. Kingdom of Serbs-Croats-Slovenes,52 and 17. Czecho-Slovak Republic53 of the one part and 18. Turkey of the other part), and they pledged to accept the decision thereupon. Thus, it is definitely compulsory arbitration and is obligatory for all of them.
c) Once arbitration has been properly executed it becomes irrevocable. It employs the legal doctrine of Res Judicata (finality of judgments), which holds that once a legal claim has come to final conclusion it can never again be litigated.54 The doctrine of res judicata is considered applicable to all arbitral awards, whether the special agreement or general treaty of arbitration contains such a provision or not.
d) The arbitral awards and court judgments are similar in their nature, as both are based on law.55 They both are legal decisions. Therefore, the Doctrine of Collateral Estoppel, which affirms that an issue, which has already been legally duly determined, cannot be reopened or litigated again in a subsequent proceeding, applies in arbitration cases as well.56
e) If an arbitration party conforms the award or, by lack of any action in a reasonable period, never confront the award, which believed to be a tacit agreement, the award considered valid and biding. It is thereafter precluded from going back on that recognition and challenging the validity of the award [Arbitral Award by the King of Spain (1960) International Court of Justice, Rep. 213].57
Turkey never has challenged the validity of President Wilson’s arbitral award, never started any action for cancellation of the award, and by lack of any action gave its tacit agreement, therefore the award is absolutely and definitely valid and binding.
f) The arbitration decisions engage the parties for an unlimited period.58 The validity of the arbitration is not dependent upon its subsequent implementation.
g) The President is the representative authority in the United States; his voice is the voice of the nation.59 The President’s representative character also implies that all official utterances of the President are of international cognizance and are presumed to be authoritative.60 Foreign nations must accept the assertion of the President as final.61 By virtue of the arbitrator’s position, the award is binding for the US as well.
h) Annulment (nullification of the legality) of an arbitral award occurs only when there is some authoritative public or judicial confirmation of the ground for such an annulment. This confirmation might come from an international agency such as the International Court of Justice. Confirmation of the ground of an annulment might also be based on international public opinion deriving from general principals of law common to all nations.62 Refusal by the losing party to comply with the award is not in itself equivalent to a lawful annulment. The plea of nullity is not admissible at all and this view is based upon Article 81 of The Hague Convention I of 1907, and the absence of any international machinery to declare an award null and void.63 52 At present: Serbia, Croatia, Slovenia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Macedonia and Montenegro. 53 At present: Czech Republic and Slovak Republic. 54 A Dictionary of Arbitration and its Terms, op. cit.: 198. 55 Manual of Public International Law, op. cit.: 584. 56 A Dictionary of Arbitration and its Terms, op. cit.: 49. 57 Manual of Public International Laws, op. cit.: 694. 58 Luzius Wildhaber . Treaty Making Power and Constitution. Basel and Stuttgart, 1971:98. 59 Quincy Wright. The Control of American Foreign Relations. New York, 1922:36. 60 Ibid: 37. 61 Ibid: 38. 62 A Dictionary of Arbitration and its Terms, op. cit.: 15. 63 Manual of Public International Law, op. cit.: 693‐694.
xii
Conclusions Territorial disputes, even when they are of law intensity, continue to represent a significant
threat to the international peace and security. It is particularly true of those conflicts that remain unresolved for a long time, allowing the rational bases of settlement to be layered by painful emotions. For example, Ararat is not a mere mountain for Armenians. It is not a number of million tones of stone, soil and snow. It is the core of the Armenian national and Biblical-Christian identity. Thus, the Turkish captivity of Ararat and the world ignorance of the fact have grown into a very considerable psychological factor, which is impossible to ignore.
After the arbitral award of the President of the USA (signed on 22 November 22, 1920, and duly notified on December 6, 1920) the presence and all acts taken by the Turkish Republic in the Wilsonian Armenia are, in fact, illegal and invalid. Consequently, in spite of the long-standing occupation, Turkey does not possess any legal title to the territory, and its de facto sovereignty is not more than an administrative control by force of arms. Belligerent occupation does not yield lawful rule over a territory. A single act of control is not enough to establish a transfer of title as Turkey might hope. Not even continuous occupation since 1920, forced changed demography of the territories and practices (turkification of the ancient Armenian names of the localities, towns, villages, districts, etc.) aiming at altering the heritage and the character of the country would help Turkey get the title.
The Arbitral Award of the President of the United States never was revoked and it can’t be done. There is not a single legal instrument that conceded Wilsonian Armenia to Turkey. Furthermore, the boundary between Armenia and Turkey, as determined by President of the United States, was reconfirmed by the Republic of Turkey by virtue Article 16 of the Treaty of Lausanne (July 24, 1923). By the Treaty of Lausanne, which is considered birth certificate of the Republic of Turkey, Turkey and other High Contracting Parties recognized the Turkish title only over the territories situated inside the frontiers laid down in the Treaty of Lausanne. No frontier was laid down between Armenia and Turkey, thus, Wilsonian Armenia defiantly and evidently was not included in the Republic of Turkey. By renouncing all rights and title over territories situated outside the frontiers laid down in the Treaty of Lausanne, the Republic of Turkey renounced its title whatsoever over Wilsonian Armenia and by virtue of international treaty reconfirmed the legal effects of the arbitral award of the President of the United States: Turkey hereby renounces all rights and title whatsoever over or respecting the territories situated outside the frontiers laid down in the present Treaty and the islands other than those over which her sovereignty is recognized by the said Treaty, the future of those territories and islands being settled or to be settled by the parties concerned (Article 16).
It is true that Armenia possesses the legal validity to the Wilsonian Armenia, but it is also true that legal validity by itself will not lead to a solution. Indeed, Armenia is the de jure holder of the title and Turkey grips the control, and none would relinquish its claims, based on Armenian side on the legal validity and on Turkish side on the military power.
It is true that international law by itself will not be able to bring about a solution for the Armenian-Turkish confrontation. Nonetheless, there is no doubt that international law is the only way to bring about a just and peaceful resolution, thus a durable and permanent solution.
Ara Papian Head of Modus Vivendi Center
Iran and Caucasus 2007; Vol. 11, No. 2: pp. 255-272. Brill, Leiden-Boston
NATIONAL ARCHIVES MICROFILM PUBLICATIONS
Microfilm Publication T1193
RECORDS OF THE DEPARTMENT OF
STATE RELATING TO POLITICAL
RELATIONS BETWEEN ARMENIA AND
OTHER STATES, 1910-1929
Roll 2
760J.6715/60 - 760J.90C/7
THE NATIONAL ARCHIVES
NATIONAL ARCHIVES AND RECORDS SERVICE
GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION
WASHINGTON: 1975
2
F U L L R E P O R T
OF THE
COMMITTEE UPON THE ARBITRATION
OF THE
BOUNDARY BETWEEN TURKEY AND ARMENIA
- - -
Composition of the Reporting Committee
Mr. W. L. Westermann, Chief of the Division of Western
Asia, American Commission
to Negotiate Peace.
Major Lawrence Martin, General Staff Corps, U. S. Army;
Geographer to the Harbord Mission.
Mr. H. G. Dwight, Division of Near Eastern Affairs,
Department of State.
3
C O N T E N T S
I The Request for the Arbitral Decision of
President Wilson.
pp. 1-3
II Strict Limitation of the Area Submitted
to the Arbitration of President
Wilson.
pp. 4-6
III Sources of Information Available to the
Committee Formulating this Report.
pp. 7-9
IV Factors Used as the Basis of the Boundary
Decision.
pp. 10-15
V The Necessity of Supplying an Unimpeded
Sea Terminal in Trebizond Sandjak.
pp. 16-23
VI Provisions for Demilitarization of
Adjacent Turkish Territory.
pp. 24-36
VII The President's Covering Letter and
Technical Boundary Decision.
pp. 38-65
VIII Area, Population and Economic Character
of the New State of Armenia.
pp. 66-73
IX The Present Political Situation in the
Near East.
pp. 74-83
X Immediate Financial Outlook of the
Republic of Armenia.
pp. 84-86
Mар:
Turkish-Armenian Boundary Decision of
President Wilson, October, 1920,
with boundaries of the four vil-
ayets, and the new frontier.
Scale 1:1,000,000.
4
- 1 -
I
The Request for the Arbitral Decision of Pres-
ident Wilson.
During the London Conference of the Supreme Council the
independence of the de facto government of the Armenian Repub-
lic was recognized by the Allied Powers on January 19, 1920.
In the period of this London Conference an understanding was
also reached upon the substantial parts of the treaty with
Turkey, preparatory to the final formulation of the treaty,
which took place at the San Remo Conference. An Inter-Al-
lied Expert Commission was appointed to consider the delimi-
tation of the boundaries of the new state of Armenia. This
Commission made its report on February 24th. The report
contained definite recommendations upon the boundaries to
be established between Turkey and Armenia, which would con-
stitute the southern and western boundaries of the new state.
It also made provisions for outlets to the sea by the estab-
lishment of Batum as a free port, and by granting special
rights to Armenia over the district of Lazistan and special
privileges for import and export over the highway to Treb-
izond and in its harbor.
On March 12th the French Ambassador, M. Jusserand,
submitted to the Secretary of State of the United States
a note which embodied the main outlines of the tentative
decisions agreed upon by the Supreme Council at the London
Conference regarding the Turkish Treaty. The note of M.
5
- 2 -
Jusserand stated that the new Armenian Republic was to bе
guaranteed an outlet to the Black Sea by the grant of
special rights over the Sandjak of Lazistan, which was to
be autonomous under nominal Armenian suzerainty. The note
of M. Jusserand gave no intimation of the other arrange-
ment contemplated by the Supreme Council for an Armenian
outlet via the free port of Batum nor of the special ar-
rangements providing freedom of transit upon the old high-
way from Erzerum via Baiburt to the port of Trebizond.
In his reply to this note, dated March 24th, the
Secretary of State expressed the view that the arrangement
for an outlet for Armenia by way of Lazistan would not
"assure to Armenia that access to the sea indispensable to
its existence." He further expressed the hope that the
Powers would consider the question of granting Trebizond
to Armenia.
On April 23d the Secretary of State Informed the
Armenian Representative that the United States recognized
the de facto government of the Armenian Republic.
At the San Remo Conference on April 26th the
Supreme Council drafted a note to the Government of the
United States requesting that the United States assume a
mandate over Armenia, within the limits stated in Section
5 (Section 6 ?) of the first printed draft of the Turkish
Treaty, and inviting the President of the United States,
6
- 3 -
whatever the decision of the American Government might be
as to the mandate, to arbitrate the question of the boun-
daries between Armenia and Turkey.
On May 17th the Secretary of State telegraphed Pres-
ident Wilson's acceptance of the invitation of the Supreme
Council that he delimit the southern and western boun-
daries of Armenia; but the request of President Wilson to
the Senate that the United States assume a mandate over
Armenia was rejected by the Senate upon June 1st.
After several postponements, the treaty with Turkey
was signed at Sèvres on Tuesday, August 10. Avetis
Aharonian, President of the Delegation of the Armenian
Republic at Paris, affixed his signature to the treaty as
binding the Armenian state to the acceptance of its terms.
For Turkey the treaty was signed by General Haadi Pasha,
Senator, by Riza Tevfik Bey, Senator, and by Rechad Haliss
Bey, Envoy Extraordinary and Minister Plenipotentiary at
Berne. The treaty has not yet been ratified by the Tur-
kish Parliament, as is required by the Turkish consti-
tution.
7
- 4 -
II
Strict Limitation of the Area submitted to the
Arbitration of President Wilson.
The decision of the Supreme Council at San Remo in
regard to the boundaries of Armenia, as finally adopted
in the Treaty of Sèvres, was based, in its main outlines,
upon the report of the Expert Commission of London, dated
February 24th. The treaty proposes that the boundaries
upon the north and northeast, between Russian Armenia and
the districts inhabited by the Georgians and the Azerbaid-
jan Tartars, shall be determined by a direct agreement of
the states concerned. It provides further that in case
these states* have not determined their common frontiers
by the time President Wilson’s decision of the Turkish-
Armenian frontiers shall have been rendered, the Prin-
cipal Allied Powers shall determine these northern boun-
daries. The eastern boundary of Armenia, between the
Armenian state and Persia, is fixed by Article 27 II (4)
of the Treaty of Sèvres. It is to be the line of the old
Turco-Persian frontier. The boundary arbitration refer-
red to President Wilson contemplates, therefore, the
decision only of the southern and western frontiers of
* The government of the United States
has never recognized the de facto govern- ments either of Georgia or of Azerbaidjan.
8
- 5 -
the new Armenian State. All the Powers signatory to the
treaty have, by the fact of signature by their Plenipo-
tentiaries, expressed their intention of accepting the
terms of the President's arbitral decision.
The disposition of the Allied Powers, as it crystal-
lized after the American withdrawal from Paris in December,
was to grant to the new Armenian State an unimpeded sea
terminal only on the Lazistan Coast. This intention,
however, was modified before the request for the American
mandate and the boundary decision of President Wilson was
submitted to the State Department (Telegram of Ambassador
Johnson to Secretary of State Colby dated April 27th).
According to this modification, which was embodied in the
Turkish Treaty, the possibility of including in the Ar-
menian State any part of, or all of, the Vilayet of Treb-
izond, lies in the power of President Wilson as the arbi-
trating agent. According to the terms of the treaty, how-
ever, the boundaries are to be fixed "in the Vilayets of
Erzerum, Trebizond, Van and Bitlis" (Article 89).
President Wilson is empowered:
1. To transfer "the whole or any part of the
territory of the said vilayets to Armenia,"
2. to provide for the demilitarization of
any portion of Turkish territory adjacent to
the frontiers established, and
9
- 6 -
3. to formulate arrangements for access of
Armenia to the sea
This delimitation of the area within which President
Wilson's competence to arbitrate is confined, is empha-
sized in the wording of the invitation sent to him upon
April 27th in the note of Ambassador Johnson to Secretary
of State Colby, which reads as follows:
"To invite the President ---------- to ar- bitrate the frontiers of Armenia as described in the draft article."*
An earlier portion of the invitation sent to Presi-
dent Wilson also emphasizes this limitation; It remained
to decide what parts of the provinces of Van, Bitlis,
Erzerum and Trebizond, which the Turks still hold, might
be added without danger or impropriety to Russian Armenia."
The attitude of the Government of the United States regard-
ing Trebizond, as expressed in the communication of the
Secretary of State to Mr. Jusserand upon March 24th, had
undoubtedly been effective in bringing about the inclusion
of the western sandjakes of the Vilayet of Trebizond within
the sphere of the general area which might be considered
by President Wilson in making his boundary decision.
The total area is, nevertheless, strictly confined to the
four Vilayets of Erzerum, Trebizond, Van and Bitlis.
* Namely, Article 89 of the draft of the treaty published upon May 11, 1920. This Ar- ticle is unchanged in the final draft of the treaty signed upon August 10th at Sèvres.
10
- 7 -
III
Sources of Information Available to the Com-
mittee Formulating this Report.
The present report is based upon a wide range of
information, including special investigations of all the
published materials upon the vilayets under discussion and
adjacent vilayets, consultations with American consuls,
missionaries, and teachers who have spent years in the
regions under discussion, special reports from the person-
nel of the mission of General Harbord and of the staff of
Colonel Haskell, questionnaires sent to such persons who by
reason of distance could not be consulted in person, and
the like.
The chief sources of reliable information and advice
were these:
1. The complete library, reports, and current
information gathered and used at Paris by the advis-
ers to the American Commission to Negotiate Peace,
Division of Western Asia.
2. The full text of the Harbord Report and the
original materials used in Turkey by the Harbord
Mission, added to by personal reports of several
Of the members of that Mission. The Harbord re-
port furnished material upon all the problems
which arose in the formulation of this document.
11
- 8 -
3. Questionnaires sent out to missionaries
and teachers long established in eastern Ana-
tolia. Their information was especially valu-
able upon close questions of the ethnographic
character of the border villages lying in the
districts which required especial scrutiny, and
upon the roads and the market and religious af-
filiations of villages and cities in those dis-
tricts, one with another.
4. The military-strategic strength of the
frontier of Armenia was regarded as of vital im-
portance to the new state, both immediately and
in the future. Upon all such questions we have
sought the advice of military experts of the
War Department.
5. The four existing large-scale maps of the
area in which the Turkish-Armenian boundaries
must lie are:
Turkish 1:200,000 (Turkish General Staff) 1911-1918 Russian 1:210,000 (5-verst) 1886-1916 British 1:250,000 (Eastern Turkey in Asia) 1901-1902 German 1:400,000 (Kiepert's Kleinasien) 1902-1906
Upon all of these maps the lines of the adminis-
trative boundaries of the vilayets as well as the
geographic features of the country differ markedly
in detail. We have followed the Turkish General
12
- 9 -
Staff map as decisive because of its greater fullness
off detail and our confidence in its much greater ac-
curacy. This confidence is warranted by our knowledge
that the map is based upon plane-table surveys of the
entire area and by the fact that the Harbord Mission,
having tested all the maps upon the ground in numerous
places, is confident of its superiority over the
others. The Turkish General Staff map has there-
fore been made the basis of the President's report
and has been recommended for the use of the Boundary
Commission provided for in Article 91 of the Turkish
Treaty.
6. The Committee has had the invaluable advice
and criticism of Major General James G. Harbord upon
all phases of its report.
13
- 10 -
IV
Factors used as the Basis of the Boundary
Decision.
In the formulation of this report we have proceeded
upon the following assumptions:
1. That the Turkish Treaty states clearly that
Armenia is not to extend, upon the south and west,
beyond the confines of the four vilayets;
2. That it is to have access to the sea if Presi-
dent Wilson deems it necessary; and
3. That a zone of adjacent Turkish territory is
to be demilitarized if President Wilson regards this
as an essential requirement for the immediate and the
future welfare of the Armenian State.
Despite the obvious conclusion that President Wilson has
no technical or legal competence to deal with any territory
outside the boundaries of the four vilayets specifically
named, the Armenian Delegation at Paris sent a petition to
the President, dated July 22d, requesting that he draw the
boundaries so as to include the city of Kharput and the dis-
trict about it in Armenia. This area is a part of the Vilayet
of Mamuret-ul-Aziz. They beg the President to consider the
fact that the historical frontier of Armenia has always
lain west of Kharput, that it is geographically an indivis-
14
- 11 -
ible portion of the central plateau of Armenia, and that
it is economically necessary to Armenia because of its
mineral wealth. They suggest that the boundary line fol-
low that of the former province of Erzerum, that is, the
administrative division of Erzerum of the early nineteenth
century, which included the Kharput area.
American organizations interested in the Armenian
question have also sent in letters and petitions that the
President use his good offices to include Kharput in the
Armenian state.
By the terms of the Turkish Treaty, which has been
signed and is technically in operation, the city and Sand-
jak of Kharput are already a part of Kurdistan, which is
to be immediately an autonomous state in Turkey, and,
after a year, possibly an independent state. It is our
belief that it is now beyond the power of President Wilson
to assign any portion of the Vilayet of Mamuret-ul-Aziz
to Armenia and that it is very doubtful whether he should
so assign it if he had the technical right to do so. It
would also, in our judgment, be inadvisable that he recom-
mend to the Supreme Council that Kharput be included in
Armenia. Assent to such recommendation on their part would
necessitate a revision of the treaty already signed, which
would only serve to alienate further the Turkish Nationalists
and further complicate for the Armenians the task of estab-
lishing their state, which is already difficult enough.
15
- 12 -
We have restricted our boundary consideration, there-
fore, to the four vilayets named in the treaty, Erzerum,
Trebizond, Van and Bitlis. In this fixed and limited field
of operation, the guiding considerations which we followed
were those of the geography and of the people. Historic
and ethical arguments as to the rights in the case did not
enter into consideration. These were regarded as settled by
the consensus of Allied opinion and the general feeling
throughout the world as expressed in the fact of the reestab-
lishment of the Armenian State by the terms of the Turkish
Treaty. The area which may possibly be assigned to Armenia
by the decision of President Wilson is less than one-half
of that originally claimed by the Armenians and their friends.
We have, therefore, felt that as much territory within the four
vilayets should be assigned to the new state of Armenia
as possible, in conformity with the best interests of
Armenia itself. Its interests will undoubtedly be best
served, in the long run, by adherence to the strategic,
economic, and ethnographic considerations which have been
our guiding principles.
The geographic factor we have considered from three
points of view, physiographic unity, military-strategic
unity and defensibility, and economic unity.
The correct settlement of the problem of military
defense, which brings in the question of demilitarization
of adjacent Turkish areas, will be of primary immediate
16
- 13 -
importance to the new Armenian State, inasmuch as no one
of the Allied Powers has accepted responsibility for the
enforcement of the Turkish Treaty in Armenian Turkey; nor
is it probable that any one of the Great Powers will do
so.
The factor of the economic unity of the four vilayets
was necessarily looked upon in two ways:
1. As a question of the present commercial connec-
tion of definite valley areas with their market towns
by existing highways and camel-and-donkey caravan
routes;
2. The railway lines under construction and those
projected which will, in the future, furnish the
transportation facilities for the economic wellbeing
of the country. With this latter question, that of
an adequate sea terminal for the Armenian State is
indissolubly connected.
The consideration of the ethnographic elements com-
prising the present and prospective population of the
four vilayets is greatly beclouded. This uncertainty is
caused by the original lack of genuine statistics upon
the pre-war population of these vilayets, by the deporta-
tions and massacres of the Armenians, and by the terrible
losses also among the Moslem Turkish and Kurdish in-
habitants. These Moslem losses resulted from war cas-
17
- 14 -
ualties, refugee movements of the Moslems consequent
upon the Russian military advance over these areas, and
most of all from the ravages of typhus and other diseases
among the local Moslems, both military and civilian.
We regard it as entirely safe to assume that the Moslem
population within the four vilayets suffered losses pro-
portionally almost equal to those of the Armenians.
Within the range of possibility set by these dis-
turbing factors the attempt was made to consider the
ethnographic distribution of Armenians, Kurds, and Turks
by sandjaks (administrative sub-divisions of the vilayets),
and even by villages along those boundaries which the more
important strategic and economic factors tended to estab-
lish for us beforehand. By this method of approach the
obvious natural, economic, and military barrier extending
from the Persian border south of Lake Van and south of
the Armenian city of Bitlis as far as the city of Mush,
was so strongly supported as to become inevitable. The
mountain ridges along this natural frontier range from 7,500
feet in height to l1,000 feet. The passes themselves are
from 5,500 feet above sea level to 8,800 feet, with one
pass, that below Bitlis, at 2,100 feet. The adoption of
this natural barrier between Kurdistan and Armenia cuts
off from the area which President Wilson might assign to
Armenia the Sandjaks of Hakkiari and Sairt and the south-
18
- 15 -
western part of the Sandjak of Bitlis. Ethnographically,
this is justified by the population estimates for the
Sandjaks of Hakkiari and Sairt given in the report upon
the "Population of Asiatic Turkey", used by the American
Peace Delegation at the Paris Conference. These estimates
are as follows:
Turks Kurds Armenians
Nestorian
Christians
Hakkiari 10.000 130,000 10,000 85,000
Sairt 66,000 26,000
or by percentages:
Turks Kurds Armenians
Nestorian
Christians
Hakkiari 4.15% 54.4% 4.15% 35.9%
Sairt 65.3% 25.7%
The exclusion of these two sandjaks from Armenia is
accepted as proper and inevitable by the Armenian leaders.
It was considered advisable to reduce the westward
extent of Armenian territory in Trebizond Vilayet as much
as possible so that the latitudinal stretch of the country
might not be over-extended. In Trebizond Vilayet the
Moslem and Greek elements outweigh the Armenian to such
an extent that Armenia has no ethnic claim whatsoever to
any portion of the vilayet. It is only the requirement of
a sea terminal which gives Armenia any right to the ter-
ritory granted to it. But this economic requirement seemed
absolute and decisive.
19
- 16 -
V
The necessity of Supplying an Unimpeded Sea
Terminal in Trebizond Sandjak.
In the report of the Interallied Commission appointed
by the Conference at London the attempt was made to secure
to Armenia an outlet upon the Black Sea in three ways, by
creating a free port at Batum, by granting to Armenia con-
trol over Lazistan Sandjak, and by assuring to Armenia the
right to the free use of the road from Erzerum via Baiburt
to Trebizond and the free use of that port. To your Com-
mittee, as to the London Interallied Commission, provision
for a sea terminal for the highland state of Armenia, ap-
peared as a sine qua non;1 but the provisions of the London
Commission appeared to be quite inadequate for the attain-
ment of that end.
The creation of the free port of Batum in Georgia, pro-
vided for in Articles 335-345 of the Turkish Treaty, affords
for Russian Armenia the only provision for an economic out-
let toward the west which the political situation in Trans-
caucasia and the ethnic distribution of the Armenians seem
to warrant. For it is extremely doubtful that the Georgians,
in their boundary negotiations with Armenia, will consent
to the claim of the Armenians to the left bank of the Chorokh
river and the territory south thereof. Any outlet in this
northern district, whether at Batum or below it through the
1 A Latin legal term for “a condition without which it could not be.” (A.P.)
20
- 17 -
Chorokh valley offers direct commercial drainage, sо far
as the Armenians are concerned, only to those Armenian
districts which were formerly parts of the Russian Empire.
In view of the remoteness of the territory concerned, its
relative inaccessibility to the guidance of the great Al-
lied Powers or of the League of Nations, and the kaleidoscopic
uncertainty of the politics of Transcaucasia, the continued
maintenance of freedom of access for Armenia to the port of
Batum, as arranged for in the treaty, is highly problematic.
The statement of Colonel Wm. N. Haskell, Allied High Com-
missioner in Armenia, dated June 24, 1920, was made specif-
ically in regard to his own relief work; but it describes
vividly the political uncertainty which exists, and will
continue to exist, in Transcaucasia: "The whole business
here for the last two or three months has been a hand-to-
mouth proposition, which has changed each day and with no
one able to foretell what the next day will bring forth."
We have therefore regarded the Batum provision of
the treaty, in itself praiseworthy and a just and necessary
arrangement for northern Armenia and the adjacent countries,
as entirely inadequate to meet the requirement of a com-
plete commercial outlet for Armenia.
The harbors of the Lazistan coast, at Riza and Off,
afford only poor anchorage and are so exposed to rough
weather that in certain months of the year vessels cannot
21
- 18 -
land cargoes. Back of Lazistan lie the great height's of
the Pontic Range. The mountains are from 8,000 to 12,000
feet high, the passes from 6,500 to 11,000 feet. The
gradients are tremendous. At present there are no roads
leading southward into Erzerum Vilayet which are suitable
even for vehicle traffic; and the cost of construction of
railway connections into the Armenian valleys to the south
is entirely prohibitive.
In agreement with the attitude of President Wilson, as
expressed in the note of the Secretary of State to the Al-
lied Supreme Council of March 24th, that access to the sea
is indispensable to the existence of Armenia, we have come
to the conclusion that this access is only to be obtained
by including some portion of the coastal area of the Sandjak
of Trebizond under the complete sovereignty of the Armenian
State. In view of the history of Turkish-Armenian relations
since 1876, we have regarded it as impossible to establish
such an outlet by attempting to impose upon the Turkish
government, if Trebizond should be left under Turkish suze-
rainty, arrangements for freedom of transit through Turkish
territory to Trebizond and for freedom of use of the port
of Trebizond.
In the settlement of the problem of Trebizond Vilayet
it was obvious that the assignment of any portion of the
territory to Armenia could not be justified upon ethno-
graphic lines. Our estimate of its pre-war population
22
- 19 -
gives to the Armenians about 3% of the total, to the Greeks
about 18%. The remaining 79% were Moslems of the two races
of Turks and Lazes. The last-named people comprised about
20% of the total population of the vilayet. They are
related to the Georgians, are exceedingly independent, and have
little feeling of loyalty to or affection for the Turks, and none
for Armenians. Deducting this 20% of Laz popula-
tion we still have a distinct Turkish majority for the
entire vilayet.
Accepting these estimates as approximately correct, the
question of the incorporation of any part of, or all of,
the Vilayet of Trebizond became purely a matter of an
economic outlet for Armenia. In our study of the Black Sea
ports all of our testimony, including personal observa-
tions and estimates of competent observers upon the Harbord
Mission, led to the conclusion that railway connection along
the old highway from Persia through Erzerum and Baiburt end-
ing at Trebizond could not be developed successfully because
of the prohibitive cost of the long tunnel through the Pontic
range back of Trebizond and the steep gradients upon both
sides of this range. The obvious course of the future rail-
way which will drain the Armenian Vilayets of Erzerum,
Bitlis and Van is along the Karshut Su with its terminal
at Tireboli. This conclusion is supported by Turkish,
Armenian, French and American expert testimony.
23
- 20 -
The settlement of the question of the outlet for
Armenia at Trebizond and Tireboli has recently been be-
clouded by pressure from the Pontic Greeks, who are demand-
ing immediate autonomy, with the probable intention of gain-
ing entire independence or some form of political connec-
tion with Greece in the future. At the Peace Conference
at Paris on February 4, 1919, Premier Venizelos stated
before a meeting of the Council of Ten, that the Pontic
Greeks desired that they be formed into a small independ-
ent Republic. "He did not favor this proposal as he
thought it would be very undesirable to create a large
number of small states, especially as the country surround-
ing the town (of Trebizond) comprised a very large number
of Turks. In his opinion the vilayet of Trebizond should
form part of the State of Armenia."
During the Conference at London in January, 1920, the
tendency to restrict the Armenians to the Lazistan coast
gave the Pontic Greeks a renewed opportunity to enforce
their desire for independence. This change, moreover,
seems to have affected materially the attitude of Premier
Venizelos. For, in speaking upon the treaty with Turkey
in the Greek Chamber on May 13, 1920, he stated that he
no longer considered it possible to split the Pontic Greeks
by giving a part of Trebizond Vilayet to Armenia and
another part to Turkey, and that he did not believe that
President Wilson would thus separate the Pontic Greeks in
24
- 21 -
order to provide Armenia with an access to the sea. Since
this public statement, representations have been made to
the United States government that Premier Venizelos pre-
ferred to see Trebizond Vilayet, except Lazistan, assigned
to Turkey rather than to have it divided, as must be the
case if President Wilson decides that Armenia have an un-
impeded outlet to Trebizond and Tireboli. The Pontic
Greeks also have petitioned the Supreme Council and Pres-
ident Wilson that they be granted autonomy over an area
extending from Sinob (Sinope) to Riza.
By the terms of the Treaty of Sèvres (Article 89) it
is impossible for President Wilson to deal with the Greeks
inhabiting the coastal area of the independent Sandjak
of Djanik and the Vilayet of Kastamuni (Uniya to Sinob
inclusive). This area is definitely assigned by the
Treaty terms to Turkey. Consequently the boundary de-
cision of the President can only satisfy the desire of the
Pontic Greeks for unity under Turkish sovereignty, and this
can only be done by transferring all of Trebizond Vilayet
except Lazistan to Turkey. The Armenian delegation in
Paris has acceded to the wishes of the Pontic Greeks,
now strengthened by the expressed desire of Premier
Venizelos, and have renounced their claim to all of the
coastal area of Trebizond westward of the town of Surmena.
They feel, however, that they must have a large part of
25
- 22 -
the Sandjak of Gumush-khana, in the Vilayet of Trebizond,
which contains some 50,000 Greeks. Their renouncement of
claim to the Karshut valley outlet, debouching at Tireboli,
forces them to appeal for an outlet through the Chorokh
valley below Batum. In other words the Armenians have felt
compelled to ask the Supreme Council, and now President
Wilson, to assign them a portion of territory which is
ethnologically Georgian and, from the American point of
view, still politically a part of Russia. The terms of
the Turkish Treaty do not contemplate that President Wil-
son is to assign any territory outside of the four vil-
ayets, Van, Bitlis, Erzerum and Trebizond. Even were this
not decisive against the Armenian request for the Chorokh
valley, the consistent attitude of our government in regard
to Russian territory, and particularly that of Georgia
and Azerbaidjan, as expressed in the note of the Secretary
of State of August 10, 1920, would preclude the assignment
of this valley to Armenia.
The question of the Pontic Greeks and the Armenian
sea terminal has seemed to us quite analogous to that of
Fiume. The desire for unity and independence or autonomy
on the part of a relatively small population, racially
and religiously distinct from the Armenians, runs athwart
the economic necessity of a great hinterland for an out-
let. The conditions which originally led Premier Venizelos
26
- 23 -
to declare that Trebizond should go to Armenia have not
changed. Unalterable and imperative economic considera-
tions, involving the entire hinterland, have forced us
to recommend the assignment of the coastal area, includ-
ing Tireboli, to Armenia despite the small number of
Armenians living there. The sound Turkish claim thereto,
based upon a decisive Moslem majority, as well as the
Pontic Greek desire, must be regarded as secondary to the
economic welfare of the Kurdish, Turkish and Armenian
population of the three Vilayets of Van, Bitlis and
Erzerum.
The elimination of the coastal region of Kerasun
and Ordu from Armenia was dictated by three considerations;
first, to include in Armenia as little as possible of ter-
ritory which was predominantly Turkish in population and
feeling; second, to make Armenian territory as compact
and strongly defensible as possible by diminishing its
westward extent; third, because the highways from the
south debouching at Kerasun and Ordu form the commercial
outlet for the eastern portion of the Vilayet of Sivas
which is strongly Turkish. According to the terms of the
Treaty of Sèvres all of Sivas remains a part of Turkey.
It would therefore, be as unwise and unjust politically
to include these ports under Armenian control as to leave
Trebizond and Tireboli under Turkish control.
27
- 24 -
VI
Provisions for Demilitarization of Adjacent
Turkish Territory.
General J. G. Harbord, Major C. H. Mason and Major
Lawrence Martin, having been requested to express their
opinions regarding the advisability and means for demili-
tarization of the Turkish-Armenian border, presented in
substance the following views:
GENERAL HARBORD:
The primary purpose of such demilitarized zone is the
protection of citizens of the Republic of Armenia from the
Moslem population living adjacent to its boundaries. For
centuries the Armenians living in that region have been con-
sidered to be more or less legitimate prey for the Moslem
population. With the Turkish government practically power-
less beyond the limits of Constantinople; with the National-
ists in the field in active operations to preserve the ter-
ritorial integrity of the Ottoman Empire, it is not probable
that there is any Moslem subject of Turkey, official or
non-official, in the whole region touching the contemplated
boundaries, who is not hostile to the creation of the
Armenian Republic and burning with resentment and wounded
pride at the dismemberment of his country.
After the Armistice the demobilization of the Turkish Army
was accomplished by discharging the soldiers and allow-
28
- 25 –
ing them to take their individual arms to their homes with
them. The Armenian throughout Turkey has never been al-
lowed to own or carry arms. Practically every non-Christian
subject in the region under consideration has arms in his
possession. Banditry prevails against Moslems as well as
Christians. To arm the Armenian population, leaving weapons
in the possession of the Moslems, means individual warfare
every day, perhaps every hour, in some portion of the ter-
ritory. To take up the arms, leaving aside the practical
difficulties of such disarmament, means that neither
Moslem nor Christian will be able to protect himself against
roving bandits until the region can be so thoroughly
policed that security of life and property will be estab-
lished. The rough mountainous character of the country
renders doubly difficult the suppression of outlawry.
Under the Treaty of Sèvres, the military forces of
Turkey are limited to an Imperial Bodyguard of seven hun-
dred men and a gendarmerie of fifty thousand. Provision
is made for a number of officers to be named for duty
with the gendarmerie by the several Allied Powers, a
further proviso being that the Allied officers in any
one region are to be from the same Allied Power. There
is no municipal police in Turkey worthy of the name and
upon the gendarmerie will involve the entire task of
maintaining order.
29
- 26 -
The situation seems to be:
A Central Government powerless within the region;
An armed Moslem population hostile to Christians as individuals and to the idea of a separate Armenia;
A Christian population in the minority and all unarmed;
A region where banditry reaches the dignity of a profession and is almost hereditary among certain classes;
A Christian population which, unless pre- vented by force, will, as soon as it is able, seek reprisals against Moslems on the Turkish side of the line in revenge for centuries of oppression.
There seem to be two ways in which Allied supervision
could be applied:
First, the actual occupation of such demilitarized zone
by troops of an Allied power. It is doubtful if any one of
the Allied Powers to the Treaty would be willing to under-
take such occupation. The reputation of every one of the
Allied Powers for seeking territorial aggrandizement, and
for the exploitation of occupied regions, is such that the
occupation would be the signal for turmoil only to be
quieted by bayonets and bullets.
Second, the use of Turkish Gendarmerie, if provided
with a liberal number of Allied officers conscious of the
importance of their duty and committed by sympathy and on
principle to the protection of the population on both
sides of the boundary.
Were it not for the wide-spread distrust of Great
Britain, and her intriguing in this region, the best
30
– 27 -
material for this duty with the gendarmerie, conceding that
America is out of the question, would be British officers.
The senior officer of gendarmerie should be independ-
ent of any control by local Turkish provincial authorities,
responsible perhaps to some inter-allied commission, such
as the Government of the Straits, and the control of his
actions and of his prisoners before trial should not be
subject to the jurisdiction of local Turkish courts. In
other words, to be effective, he would have to be prac-
tically a benevolent despot in his zone. The success of
the whole plan would come down to the choice of the right
officer and his subordinates for this duty.
A demilitarized zone, if less in width than a day's
march of horsemen or footmen, would permit raids across it,
eluding the gendarmerie. Such raiding parties in any num-
bers could not raid and return beyond twenty-five miles in
a day and it is believed the minimum width of such neutral
zone, if established, should be about fifty miles. In-
stead of a zone of fixed width parallel to the boundary,
it would be practicable and save dispute over the limits
of the zone if the adjoining vilayets, Diarbekir,
Mamuret-ul-Aziz, etc., were declared the zone to be
neutral under allied officers controlling their gendarmerie.
31
- 28 -
MAJOR MASON:
То demilitarize the Turkish-Armenian frontier it is
necessary that there be no establishments of military
colonies, points d'appui, strategic transportation systems
or excessive garrisons within the areas under consideration.
Under the present situation a prescription for the
disarmament of these border peoples would be both inef-
fective and ill-advised — ineffective because imprac-
ticable of accomplishment, ill-advised as it would tend to
lessen the present scanty means of individual self-defense,
which in this region of long maladministration is a funda-
mental necessity.
Armenia is of military importance to the world through
its location at the point of frictional contact of several
great national interests, all of which Armenia flanks or
lies athwart of in such manner as to make of her an object
of jealousy and grave temptation to aggression - aggres-
sion that may be either direct, through the construction
of strategic railways and highways and points d'appui
for use in sudden conquest, as exemplified by the German
procedure against Belgium, or indirect through the encourage-
ment of border lawlessness. In the region under considera-
tion the primitive character and present disorganization
of the border peoples, their divergent religions and cul-
ture, their traditional antagonisms and in some cases
32
- 29 -
nomadic life, their present isolation from modern condi-
tions and the topography of their countryside, separately
and together make for lawlessness and present a tempting op-
portunity for the play of those sinister influences whose
aims are turbulence and military aggression.
The devastated regions offer special opportunities for
establishing an army in residence along the frontier through
the well-known method of military colonies (Cossacks, as
they are called in Russian territory). Such aggregations
are peculiarly inimical to contiguous territories, due to
their independence of railway and supply systems, which
are usually prerequisites of frontier mobilization. To
eliminate this phase of militarization, it is essential
that military colonies along the frontier be prohibited.
Such a prohibition to be effective must apply to a zone at
least a day's march on each side of the frontier and must be
subject to the constant supervision of a disinterested power.
Without such supervision, the inherent characteristics of
frontier life make it easy to covertly militarize the
resident population.
As regards the depopulated regions, it is, of course,
most desirable that they be repopulated as quickly as may
be and it is peculiarly desirable that no prohibition should
be permitted to operate to prevent the accomplishment of
this. However, unless local disinterested observation is
keen and continuous in permitting legitimate settlement
33
- 30 -
and yet preventing military colonies the pressure of
frontier conditions, in conjunction with sinister propa-
ganda and intrigues, will very quickly produce militari-
zation and subsequent turbulence and aggression. But this
is not the only method of frontier militarization — there
is that produced by railway and highway systems, which in
conjunction with supply depots provide the essential bases
for large modern offensive operations. Such depots of sup-
ply are not needed for defensive purposes nor for the nor-
mal garrisons and therefore they have no legitimate reason
for existing in this region. Since, however, these depots
are essential to large formal offensive operations, such
operations can be prevented by prohibiting the establish-
ment of these depots of supply and by making the transport-
tation systems conform strictly to the needs of the economic
situation, solely. By limiting the amount of supplies kept
within a frontier area the number of troops that can be main-
tained in that area or concentrated therein is limited. This
provides one of the best means of insuring that garrisons
are restricted to their authorized strength. An unreason-
able application of such a prohibition, on the other hand,
will tend to defeat the object sought, by hampering the
development of communications, when roads and railroads
are among the most important elements for dissipating the
medievalism of this region and opening it to the civilizing
influences of world intercourse.
34
- 31 -
Thus the objectives of demilitarization of the Turkish-
Armenian boundary are as follows:
(1) The prevention of strategic railway and highway construction and the non-establish- ment of points d'appui and military colonies within striking distance of the international boundary.
(2) The prevention of inimical propaganda and the activities of provocateurs in the border regions.
(3) The quashing of quasi-military tur-
bulence by the establishment of civil law and order.
The first objective involves the acquiescence of the
Armenian and Turkish Governments and the obligation of
decision and enforcement by the League of Nations.
The second objective is one of peculiar importance at
the present time when the methods of the propagandists and
the provocateurs are so generally effectively in use. Gen-
eral colonial experience indicates that the most effective
means of dealing with these methods is through the personal
contacts of the local occidental governor, commissioner, or
whatever the colonial official's title may be — provided
he is a man fitted for the work — a man who having the
necessary qualities of character to establish himself as
the revered counselor and friend of the natives can, through
their chiefs, allay unrest and eliminate hostile influences.
The type of man, his methods and achievements are so well
known in colonial work as to obviate the necessity of
35
- 32 -
analyzing the rather intangible methods by which his very
tangible results are accomplished. Such a man commissioned
by the League of Nations as Commissioner or Warden of the
Turkish-Armenian frontier and operating under large dis-
cretionary powers for the peace of the border country, of-
fers about the only means available under present condi-
tions for accomplishing the second objective and also for
providing that close and continuous disinterested observa-
tion requisite to the various phases of successful demili-
tarization.
The third objective would gradually accrue through the
work of the Warden or Commissioner of the border upon his
being endowed with the necessary diplomatic and superior
magisterial powers. To this end he should be given the
necessary sanctions by the League and by the Armenian and
Turkish Governments, together with such sanctions from
local headmen as he can gradually obtain from them.
As demilitarization is the object sought, the Warden
must ipso facto work through civil methods, but equally
obviously he must have force back of him and subject to
his call. The obvious ability to apply force promptly and
efficiently is an axiomatic prerequisite to success. The
essence of such application is promptness and incisiveness —
deficiency in either causing a reaction that but feeds the
flame. Promptness of summons can be obtained through the
36
- 33 -
Warden being provided with an adequate radio telegraph system
throughout the border zone. Incisiveness of application can
be achieved by providing the Warden with an occidental con-
stabulary, including an aerial unit. If this contingent
consists of picked men it need not be large. It should be
under the sole jurisdiction and orders of the Warden. Through
this means the Warden should be able to produce at need such
a prompt show of power as to minimize the necessity for its
use.
MAJOR MARTIN:
The frontier provided, and the limitations placed upon
the Turkish army by the Treaty of Sèvres, furnish Western
Armenia with adequate military security.
The Treaty of Sèvres (Articles 152, 156, 165, 170, and
200 (2) limits the size of the military forces which Turkey
may maintain within the territorial areas adjacent to the
Armenian frontier to a small proportion of 35,000 men, or
at most of 50,000 men — say 5,000 to 10,000 men. These
forces may not include either artillery or technical ser-
vices, except in case of serious trouble. The legions of
gendarmerie from one territorial area may not be employed
outside this area. The legions are to be made up of local
inhabitants, including both Non-Moslem and Moslem soldiers.
The nature of the terrain and of the population within
Turkish territory adjacent to the new Armenian frontier
37
- 34 -
is such that small armed forces are and always will be neces-
sary for the maintenance of order. Within these mountains no
strategic highways or railways are likely to be built except
those needed for peace-time commerce.
It would be inconsistent to demilitarize the Turkish ter-
ritory adjacent to the northern portion of the new Armenian
frontier without also demilitarizing the southern and eastern
portions of the Armenian frontier in the autonomous Kurdish
area of eastern Turkey, including the Dersim, Kharput, Sairt,
and Hakkiari districts. It would be unsafe to limit perma-
nently the gendarmerie of these Kurdish areas to the small
number provided by the Turkish treaty and to forbid the use
of artillery and of such technical services as are provided
with pontoons, airplanes and dirigibles. The Armenians
and many of the Kurds, Turks and other peaceable inhabi-
tants of these Kurdish districts may need more protection
than can be provided in a rigidly demilitarized zone.
If a zone in Turkey or in Kurdistan were to be demili-
tarized the Turkish, Kurdish, Armenian and Greek inhabitants
of the demilitarized zone might feel that a corresponding
zone in Armenia ought to be also demilitarized. This the
President is not authorized to do.
For all these reasons it is thought best, in the inter-
est of good-feeling between the local populations of all
races and religions inside and outside the new Armenian
38
- 35 -
frontier, that no Turkish territory adjacent to the new
Armenian frontier be demilitarized.
- - - - - -
Having considered the foregoing an unanimity of opinion
between these three officers quickly developed, in substance
as follows:
That the Treaty of Sèvres in its provisions for de-
mobilizing and demilitarizing the Turkish Empire has provided
adequate means for demilitarizing the frontier, provided
certain special applications are made of the prescriptions
in that Treaty, to wit: that in the vilayets contiguous to
Armenia the superior officers of the gendarmerie provided
for in the Treaty be without exception officers of the Al-
lied, Associate or neutral Powers to the exclusion of others
and that these officers be specifically charged with observ-
ing and reporting any tendency within these border vilayets
that would make for militarization — such as military
colonies, strategic railways and highways, excessive depots
of supply, arming fortifications, etc.
That under the limitations of the request under which
the President is rendering his decision and prescription,
it would not be feasible for him to prescribe like super-
vision on the Armenian side of the border; therefore, the
39
- 36 -
supervision here provided for is restricted to the Turkish
side, though it is felt that to accomplish a wholly satis-
factory result similar measures should he applied to the
Armenian side.
40
S E C T I O N V I I
- - - -
Covering Letter of President Wilson
to the Supreme Council and
Arbitral Decision of President Wilson.
41
-38-
The President
of the Supreme Council
of the Allied Powers.
Mr. President:
By action of the Supreme Council taken on April 26th
of this year an invitation was tendered to me to arbitrate
the question of the boundaries between Turkey and the new
state of Armenia. Representatives of the powers signatory
on August 10th of this year to the Treaty of Sèvres have
acquiesced in conferring this honor upon me and have signi-
fied their intention of accepting frontiers which are
to be determined by my decision, as well as any stipulations
which I may prescribe as to access for Armenia to the sea
and any arrangements for the demilitarization of Turkish
territory lying along the frontier thus established. According
to the terms of the arbitral reference set forth in Part III,
Section 6, Article 89, of the Treaty of Sèvres, the scope of
the arbitral competence assigned to me is clearly limited to
the determination of the frontiers of Turkey and Armenia in the
Vilayets of Erzerum, Trebizond, Van and Bitlis. With full
consciousness of the responsibility placed upon me by your
request, I have approached this difficult task with eagerness
to serve the best interests of the Armenian people as well
as the remaining inhabitants, of whatever race or religious
42
- 39 -
belief they may be, in this stricken country, attempting to
exercise also the strictest possible justice toward the
populations, whether Turkish, Kurdish, Greek or Armenian,
living in the adjacent areas.
In approaching this problem it was obvious that the
existing ethnic and religious distribution of the populations
in the four vilayets could not, as in other parts of the
world, be regarded as the guiding element of the decision.
The ethnic consideration, in the case of a population originally
so complexly intermingled, is further beclouded by the terrible
results of the massacres and deportations of Armenians and
Greeks, and by the dreadful losses also suffered by the Moslem
inhabitants through refugee movements and the scourge of
typhus and other diseases. The limitation of the arbitral
assignment to the four vilayets named in Article 89 of the
Treaty made it seem a duty and an obligation that as large an
area within these vilayets be granted to the Armenian state
as could be done, while meeting the basic requirements of
an adequate natural frontier and of geographic and economic
unity for the new state. It was essential to keep in mind
that the new state of Armenia, including as it will a large
section of the former Armenian provinces of Transcaucasian
Russia, will at the outset have a population about equally
divided between Moslem and Christian elements and of diverse
racial and tribal relationship. The citizenship of the
Armenian Republic will, by the tests of language and religion,
43
- 40 -
be composed of Turks, Kurds, Greeks, Kizilbashis, Lazes and
others, as well as Armenians. The conflicting territorial
desires of Armenians, Turks, Kurds and Greeks along the bounda-
ries assigned to my arbitral decision could not always be
harmonized. In such cases it was my belief that consideration of
a healthy economic life for the future state of Armenia should
be decisive. Where, however, the requirements of a correct geogra-
phic boundary permitted, all mountain and valley districts along
the border which were predominantly Kurdish or Turkish have been
left to Turkey rather than assigned to Armenia, unless trade
relations with definite market towns threw them necessarily into
the Armenian state. Wherever information upon tribal relations
and seasonal migrations was obtainable, the attempt was made to
respect the integrity of tribal groupings and nomad pastoral
movements.
From the Persian border southwest of the town of Kotur
the boundary line of Armenia is determined by a rugged natural
barrier of great height, extending south of Lake Van and lying
southwest of the Armenian cities of Bitlis and Mush. This bound-
ary line leaves as a part of the Turkish state the entire Sandjak
of Hakkiari, or about one-half of the Vilayet of Van, and almost
the entire Sandjak of Sairt. The sound physiographic reason
which seemed to justify this decision was further strengthened
by the ethnographic consideration that Hakkiari and Sairt are
predominantly Kurdish in population and economic relations.
44
- 41 -
It did not seem to the best interest of the Armenian state to
include in it the upper valley of the Great Zab River, largely
Kurdish and Nestorian Christian in population and an essential
element of the great Tigris river irrigation system of Turkish
Kurdistan and Mesopotamia. The control of these headwaters
should be kept, wherever possible, within the domain of the two
interested states, Turkey and Mesopotamia. For these reasons the
Armenian claim upon the upper valley of the Great Zab could not
be satisfied.
The boundary upon the west from Bitlis and Mush northward
to the vicinity of Erzingan lies well within Bitlis and Erzerum
vilayets. It follows a natural geographic barrier, which furnishes
Armenia with perfect security and leaves to the Turkish state an
area which is strongly Kurdish. Armenian villages and village
nuclei in this section, such as Kighi and Temran, necessarily
remain Turkish because of the strong commercial and church ties
which connect them with Kharput rather than with any Armenian
market and religious centers which lie within Bitlis or Erzerum
vilayets. This decision seemed an unavoidable consequence of
the inclusion of the city and district of Kharput in the Turkish
state as determined by Article 27 II (4) and Article 89 of the
Treaty of Sèvres.
From the northern border of the Dersim the nature and direct-
ion of the frontier decision was primarily dependent upon the
vital question of supplying an adequate access to the sea for the
45
- 42 -
state of Armenia. Upon the correct solution of this problem
depends, in my judgment, the future economic well-being of the
entire population, Turkish, Kurdish, Greek, Armenian, or Yezidi,
in those portions of the Vilayets of Erzerum, Bitlis and Van which
will lie within the state of Armenia. I was not unmindful of
the desire of the Pontic Greeks, submitted to me in a memorandum
similar, no doubt, in argument and content to that presented to
the Supreme Council last March at its London Conference, that
the unity of the coastal area of the Black Sea inhabited by
them be preserved and that arrangements be made for an autonomous
administration for the region stretching from Riza to a point west
of Sinope. The arbitral jurisdiction assigned to me by Article
89 of the Treaty of Sèvres does not include the possibility of
decision or recommendation by me upon the question of their de-
sire for independence, or failing that, for autonomy. Nor does
it include the right to deal with the littoral of the independent
Sandjak of Djanik or of the Vilayet of Kastamuni into which
extends the region of the unity and autonomy desired by the Pontic
Greeks.
Three possible courses lay open to me: to so delimit the
boundary that the whole of Trebizond Vilayet would lie within
Turkey, to grant it in its entirety to Armenia, or to grant a part
of it to Armenia and leave the remainder to Turkey. The majority
of the population of Trebizond Vilayet is incontestably Moslem
46
- 43 -
and the Armenian element, according to all pre-war estimates,
was undeniably inferior numerically to the Greek portion of
the Christian minority. Against a decision so clearly indi-
cated on ethnographic grounds weighed heavily the future of
Armenia. I could only regard the question in the light of
the needs of a new political entity, Armenia, with mingled
Moslem and Christian populations, rather than as a question
of the future of the Armenians alone. It has been and is
now increasingly my conviction that the arrangements providing
for Armenia’s access to the sea must be such as to offer every
possibility for the development of this state as one capable
of reassuming and maintaining that useful role in the commerce
of the world which its geographic position, athwart a great
historic trade route, assigned to it in the past. The civil-
ization and happiness of its mingled population will largely de-
pend upon the building of railways and the increased access-
ibility of the hinterland of the three vilayets to European
trade and cultural influences.
Eastward from the port of Trebizond along the coast of
Lazistan no adequate harbor facilities are to be found and the
rugged character of the Pontic range separating Lazistan
Sandjak from the Vilayet of Erzerum is such as to isolate the
hinterland from the coast so far as practicable railway con-
struction is concerned. The existing caravan route from
Persia across the plains of Bayazid and Erzerum, which passes
47
- 44 -
through the towns of Baiburt and Gumush-khana and debouches upon
the Black Sea at Trebizond, has behind it a long record of
persistent usefulness.
These were the considerations which have forced me to
revert to my original conviction that the town and harbor
of Trebizond must become an integral part of Armenia. Because
of the still greater adaptibility of the route of the Karshut
valley, ending at the town of Tireboli, for successful railway
construction and operation I have deemed it also essential
to include this valley in Armenia, with enough territory ly-
ing west of it to insure its adequate protection. I am not
unaware that the leaders of the Armenian delegations have
expressed their willingness to renounce claim upon that por-
tion of Trebizond Vilayet lying west of Surmena. Commendable
as is their desire to avoid the assumption of authority over
a territory so predominantly Moslem, I am confident that,
in acquiescing in their eagerness to do justice to the Turks
and Greeks in Trebizond I should be doing an irreparable injury
to the future of the land of Armenia and its entire population,
of which they will be a part.
It was upon such a basis, Mr. President, that the boundaries
were so drawn as to follow mountain ridges west of the city of
Erzingan to the Pontic range and thence to the Black Sea, in
such a way as to include in Armenia the indentation called
48
- 45 -
Zephyr Bay. The decision to leave to Turkey the harbor towns
and hinterland of Kerasun and Ordu in Trebizond Sandjak was
dictated by the fact that the population of this region is
strongly Moslem and Turkish and that these towns are the out-
lets for the easternmost sections of the Turkish vilayet of
Sivas. The parts of Erzerum and Trebizond Vilayets which,
by reason of this delimitation, remain Turkish rather than
become Armenian comprise approximately 12,120 square
kilometers.
In the matter of the demilitarization of Turkish territory
adjacent to the Armenian border as it has been broadly des-
cribed above, it seemed both impracticable and unnecessary
to establish a demilitarized zone which would require elaborate
prescriptions and complex agencies for their execution.
Fortunately, Article 177 of the Treaty of Sèvres prescribes
the disarming of all existing forts throughout Turkey. Articles
159 and 196-200 provide in addition agencies entirely adequate
to meet all the dangers of disorder which may arise along the
borders, the former by the requirement that a proportion of
the officers of the gendarmerie shall be supplied by the
various Allied or neutral Powers, the latter by the establish-
ment of a Military Inter-Allied Commission of Control and
Organization. In these circumstances the only additional pres-
criptions which seemed necessary and advisable were that the
Military Inter-Allied Commission of Control and Organization
should, in conformity with the powers bestowed upon it by
49
- 46 -
Article 200 of the Treaty, select the superior officers of the
gendarmerie to be stationed in the vilayets of Turkey lying
contiguous to the frontiers of Armenia solely from those offi-
cers who will be detailed by the Allied or neutral Powers in
accordance with Article 159 of the Treaty; and that these
officers, under the supervision of the Military Inter-Allied
Commission of Organization and Control, should be especially
charged with the duty of preventing military preparations
directed against the Armenian frontier.
It is my confident expectation that the Armenian refugees
and their leaders, in the period of their return into the
territory thus assigned to them, will by refraining from any
and all form of reprisals give to the world an example of that
high moral courage which must always be the foundation of
national strength. The world expects of them that they give
every encouragement and help within their power to those Turkish
refugees who may desire to return to their former homes in the
districts of Trebizond, Erzerum, Van and Bitlis, remembering
that these peoples, too, have suffered greatly. It is my further
expectation that they will offer such considerate treatment to
the Laz and the Greek inhabitants of the coastal region of the
Black Sea, surpassing in the liberality of their administrative
arrangements, if necessary, even the ample provisions for non-
Armenian racial and religious groups embodied in the Minorities
50
- 47 -
Treaty signed by them upon August 10th of this year, that
these peoples will gladly and willingly work in completest
harmony with the Armenians in laying firmly the foundation
of the new Republic of Armenia.
I have the honor to submit herewith the text of my
decision.
Accept, Mr. President, the renewed assurance of my
highest consideration.
(Signed) Woodrow Wilson
The White House,
Washington,
November 22, 1920.
51
DECISION
OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
RESPECTING
THE FRONTIER BETWEEN TURKEY AND ARMENIA,
ACCESS FOR ARMENIA TO THE SEA
AND THE DEMILITARIZATION OF TURKISH TERRITORY ADJACENT
TO THE ARMENIAN FRONTIER
- - - - -
Woodrow Wilson, President of the United States,
to Whom it Shall Concern,
Greeting:
Whereas, on April 26, 1920, the Supreme Council
of the Allied Powers, in conference at San Remo, addressed
to the President of the United States of America an invita-
tion to act as arbitrator in the question of the boundary
between Turkey and Armenia, to be fixed within the four
Vilayets of Erzerom, Trebizond, Van and Bitlis;
And whereas, on May 17, 1920, my acceptance of
this invitation was telegraphed to the American Ambassador
in Paris, to be conveyed to the Powers represented on the
Supreme Council;
And whereas, on August 10, 1920, a Treaty of
Peace was signed at Sèvres by Plenipotentiary Representa-
tives of the British Empire, France, Italy and Japan, and
of Armenia, Belgium, Greece, Poland, Portugal, Roumania,
52
- 49 -
and Czecho-Slovakia, of the one part and of Turkey, of
the other part, which Treaty contained, among other
provisions, the following:
"Article 89
"Turkey and Armenia, as well as the other
High Contracting Parties agree to submit to
the arbitration of the President of the United
States of America the question of the frontier
to be fixed between Turkey and Armenia in the
Vilayets of Erzerum, Trebizond, Van and Bitlis,
and to accept his decision thereupon, as well as
any stipulations he may prescribe as to ac-
cess for Armenia to the sea, and as to the de-
militarization of any portion of Turkish ter-
ritory adjacent to the said frontier";
And whereas, on October 18, 1920, the Secretariat
General of the Peace Conference, acting under the in-
structions of the Allied Powers, transmitted to me,
through the Embassy of the United States of America in
Paris, an authenticated copy of the above mentioned Treaty,
drawing attention to the said Article 89;
How, therefore, I, Woodrow Wilson, President of the
United States of America, upon whom has thus been con-
ferred the authority of arbitrator, having examined
the question in the light of the most trustworthy infor-
mation available, and with a mind to the highest inter-
ests of justice, do hereby declare the following decision:
53
- 50 -
I
The frontier between Turkey and Armenia in the
Vilayets of Erzerum, Trebizond, Van, and Bitlis, shall be
fixed as follows (see annexed map on the scale of l:1,000,000):
1. The initial point* shall be chosen on the ground
at the junction of the Turkish-Persian frontier with the
eastern termination of the administrative boundary between
the Sandjaks of Van and Hakkiari, of the Vilayet of Van, as
this administrative boundary appears upon the Bashkala sheet
of the Turkish map, scale 1:200,000, editions published in
the Turkish financial years 1330 and 1331 (1914 and 1915).
From this initial point the boundary shall extend southwest-
ward to the western peak of Merkezer Dagh, situated about 6
kilometers westward from point 3350 (10,990 feet), about 2
kilometers southeastward from the village of Yokary Ahvalan,
and approximately 76 kilometers southeastward from the city
of Van,
the Sandjak boundary specified above, then the administra-
tive boundary between the Kazas of Mamuret-ul-Hamid and
* It is my understanding that this initial point will lie upon the former Turkish-Persian frontier re- ferred to in Article 27 II (4) of the Treaty of Sèvres; but 40 miles of the said frontier, within which the initial point of the Armenian frontier is included, were left undemarcated by the Turco-Persian Frontier Commission in 1914. The initial point contemplated lies about 1 kilometer southward from the village of Kara Hissa and approximately 25 kilometers southwestward from the village of Kotur, and may be fixed on the ground as near this location as the Boundary Commission shall determine, provided it lies as the junction of the Van-Hakkiari Sandjak boundary with the frontier of Persia.
54
- 51 -
Elback, then the same Sandjak boundary specified above, all
modified, where necessary, to follow the main water-parting
between the Zap Su (Great Zeb River) and the Khoshab Su
and dividing equably the summits of the passes Krdes Gedik
and Chokh Gedik;
thence northwestward about 28 kilometers to Klesiry
Dagh,
a line to be fixed on the ground, following the main
water-partings between the Khoshab Su and the streams flow-
ing into the Shatak Su, and traversing the pass south of
the village of Yokary Ahvalan, and passing through Shkolans
Dagh (3100 meters or 10,170 feet) and the Belereshuk pass;
thence southwestward to the junction of an unnamed
stream with the Shatak Su at a point about 10 kilometers
southward from the village of Shatak,
a line to be fixed on the ground, following the main
water-partings, and passing through Koh Kiran Daghlar, Sari
Dagh, (3150 meters or 10,335 feet), Kevmetala Tepe (3500
meters or 11,480 feet), point 3540 (11,615 feet), in such a
way as to leave to Armenia the village of Eyreti, and to
Turkey the village of Araz, and to cross the Shatak Su at
least 2 kilometers southward from the village of Dir Mouem
Kilisa;
thence westward to the point where the Bitlis-Van
Vilayet boundary reaches the Moks Su from the west, situa-
ted about 18 kilometers southward from the Village of Moks,
55
- 52 -
a line to be fixed on the ground, following the main
water-partings, leaving to Armenia the villages of Kachet,
Sinpass, and Ozim, passing through Kanisor Tepe (3245
meters or 10,645 feet), an unnamed peak about 3 kilom-
eters southward from Arnus Dagh (3550 meters or 11,645
feet), crossing an unnamed stream about 2 kilometers
southward from the village of Sinpass, passing through
point 3000 (9840 feet), following the boundary between
the Vilayets of Van and Bitlis for about 3 kilometers south-
westward from this point and continuing southwest-
ward on the same ridge to an unnamed peak about 2 kilom-
eters eastward from Moks Su, and then descending to this
stream;
thence northward to an unnamed peak on the boundary
between the Vilayets of Van and Bitlis about 3 kilometers
westward from the village of Sorsy and about 6 kilometers
northward from the pass at Mata Gedik,
the administrative boundary between the Vilayets of
Van and Bitlis, modified south of Vankin Dagh (3200 meters
or 10,500 feet) to follow the main water-parting;
thence westward to the peak Meidan Chenidiani, situa-
ted on the boundary between the Sandjaks of Bitlis and
Sairt about 29 kilometers southeastward from the city of
Bitlis,
a line to be fixed on the ground, following the main
water-partings, passing through Veberhan Dagh (3110 meters
56
- 53 -
or 10,200 feet), crossing the Kesan Dare about 2 kilometers
southward from the village of Khoros, leaving to Turkey the
villages of Semhaj and Nevaleyn as well as the bridge or
ford on the trail between them, and leaving to Armenia the
village of Chopans and the trail leading to it from the
northeast;
thence westward to the Guzel Dere Su at a point about
23 kilometers southward from the city of Bitlis and about 2
kilometers southward from Nuri Ser peak (2150 meters or
7050 feet),
the administrative boundary between the Sandjaks of
Bitlis and Sairt, and then, a line to be fixed on the ground,
following the main water-partings, and passing through points
2750 and 2700 of Kur Dagh, (9020 and 8860 feet, respectively),
Biluki Dagh (2230 meters or 7315 feet), and Sihaser Tepe
(2250 meters or 7580 feet);
thence westward to the junction of the Bitlis Su and
the unnamed stream near the village of Deshtumi, about 30
kilometers southwestward from the city of Bitlis,
a line to be fixed on the ground, following the main
water-partings, leaving to Turkey the villages of Lered
and Daruni, and to Armenia the village of Enbu and all
portions of the trail leading northeastward to the Bitlis
Su from Mergelu peak (1850 meters or 6070 feet), and passing
through Mergelu Tepe and Shikh Tabur ridge;
57
- 54 -
thence westward to the Zuk (Gharsan) Su at a point
about 11 kilometers northeastward from the village of
Hazo and approximately 1 kilometer upstream from the vil-
lage of Zily,
a line to be fixed on the ground, following the main
water-partings, leaving to Armenia the village of Deshtumi,
passing through the eastern peak of Kalmen Dagh (2710
meters or 8890 feet), and continuing in such a manner as
to leave to Armenia the upland dolina, or basin of
interior drainage, to traverse the pass about 3 kilometers
westward from the village of Avesipy, passing through
Shelash Bagh (1944 meters or 6380 feet);
thence westward to the Sassun Dere at a point about 4
kilometers southwestward from the village of Kabil Jeviz
and approximately 47 kilometers southward from the city
of Mush,
a line to be fixed on the ground, following the main
water-partings through Cheyardash peak (2001 meters or
6565 feet), Keupeka peak (1931 meters or 6335 feet), an
unnamed peak on the Sassun Bagh about 4 kilometers south-
westward from Malato Bagh (2967 meters or 9735 feet),
point 2229 (7310 feet), and leaving to Turkey the vil-
lage of Gundenu;
thence northwestward to the Talury Dere at a point
about 2 kilometers upstream from the village of Kasser
58
- 55 -
and approximately 37 kilometers northeastward from the vil-
lage of Seylevan (Farkin),
a line to be fixed on the ground, following the main
water-partings and passing through an unnamed peak about
2 kilometers eastward from the village of Seyluk, and
through point 2073 (6800 feet), leaving to Armenia the
village of Heyshtirem;
thence northwestward to the western tributary of the
Talury Dere at a point about 2 kilometers eastward from
the village of Helin and approximately 42 kilometers south-
westward from the city of Mush,
a line to be fixed on the ground, following the main
water-partings, and passing through point 2251 (7385 feet);
thence northwestward to the junction of the Kulp
Boghazy (Kulp Su) and Askar Dere, approximately 42 kilom-
eters southwestward from the city of Mush,
a line to be fixed on the ground, following the main
water-partings, leaving to Turkey the village of Helin and
to Armenia the village of Kehirvanik;
thence northwestward to a point on the administrative
boundary between the Sandjaks of Gendj and Mush northeast
of Mir Ismail Dagh, and situated about 5 kilometers west-
ward from the village of Pelekoz, and approximately 19
kilometers southward from the village of Ardushin,
59
- 56 -
a line to be fixed on the ground, following the main
water-partings, and passing through the Komiss Dagh;
thence northwestward to the Frat Nehri (Murad Su,
or Euphrates) at a point to be determined on the ground
about 1 kilometer upstream from the village of Dorne and
approximately 56 kilometers westward from the city of Mush,
the administrative boundary between the Sandjaks of
Gendj and Mush northward for about 2 kilometers, then a
line to be fixed on the ground, following the main water-
partings westward to an unnamed peak approximately 6
kilometers east of Chutela (Akche Kara) Dagh (2940 meters
or 9645 feet), then northward passing through Hadije Tepe
on Arshik Dagh, leaving to Turkey the village of Kulay and
to Armenia the village of Kluhuran;
thence northwestward to the Gunik Su at a point about
midway between two trails crossing this river about half
way between the villages of Elmaly and Chenajky, and
approximately 26 kilometers northeastward from the vil-
lage of Cholik (Chevelik),
a line to be fixed on the ground, following the main water-
partings, passing through an unnamed peak about 2 kilometers
westward from the village of Shanghar, along Solkhan Dagh, and
through point 2200 (7220 feet), leaving to Turkey the villages
of Shanghar and Chenajky, and to Armenia the villages of
Kumistan, Lichinak, and Elmaly;
60
- 57 -
thence northwestward to the boundary between the
vilayets of Erzerum and Bitlis at an unnamed peak near
where a straight line between the villages of Erchek and
Agha Keui would intersect said vilayet boundary,
a line to be fixed on the ground, following the main
water-partings, passing through point 2050 (6725 feet);
thence northward to an unnamed peak on said vilayet
boundary about 8 kilometers northwestward from the Kartalik
Tepe on the Choris Dagh,
the administrative boundary between the Vilayets of
Erzerum and Bitlis;
thence westward to the Buyuk Su (Kighi Su) at a point
about 2 kilometers upstream from the junction of the Ghabzu
Dere with it, and approximately 11 kilometers northwestward
from the village of Kighi,
a line to be fixed on the ground, following the main
water-partings of the Sheitan Daghlar, passing through
points 2610 (8565 feet), Sheitan Dagh (2906 meters or
9535 feet), Hakstun Dagh, and leaving to Armenia the vil-
lage of Dinek and the ford or bridge southwest of this
village;
thence westward to the Dar Boghaz (Kuttu Dere) at a
point about 3 kilometers southward from the village of
Chardaklar (Palumor),
61
- 58 -
a line to be fixed on the ground, following the main
water-partings, leaving to Armenia the villages of Shorakh
and Ferhadin, passing through Ghabarti Dagh (2550 meters
or 8365 feet), Sian Dagh (2750 meters or 9020 feet), the
2150 meter pass on the Palumor-Kighi trail near Mustafa Bey
Konaghy, Feziria Tepe (2530 meters or 8300 feet), point 2244
(7360 feet), and point 2035 (6675 feet);
thence westward to the point common to the boundaries
of the Sandjaks of Erzingan and Erzerum and the Vilayet of
Mamuret-ul-Aziz, situated at a sharp angle in the vilayet
boundary, approximately 24 kilometers westward from the village
of Palumor and 32 kilometers southeastward from the city
of Erzingan,
a line to be fixed on the ground, following the main
water-partings, and passing northwestward through an un-
named peak about 2 kilometers southwestward from Palumor,
through Silos (Kersinod) Dagh (2405 meters or 7890 feet)
to an unnamed peak on the southern boundary of the Sandjak
of Erzingan, about 8 kilometers southwestward from the
Palumor-Erzingan pass, then turning southwestward along
said sandjak boundary for nearly 13 kilometers, passing through
Karaja Kaleh (3100 meters or 10,170 feet);
thence westward to an unnamed peak on the boundary
between the Vilayets of Erzerum and Mamuret-ul-Aziz about
3 kilometers northeastward from the pass on the trail
across the Monzur Silsilesi between Kemakh on the
62
- 59 -
Euphrates and Pelur in the Dersim, the peak being approx-
imately 40 kilometers southwestward from the city of
Erzingan,
the administrative boundary between the Vilayets of
Erzerum and Mamuret-ul-Aziz, modified*, in case a majority
of the voting members of the Boundary Commission deem it
wise, to follow the main water-parting along the ridge
between an unnamed peak about 2 kilometers southwest of Merjan
Daghlar (3449 meters or 11,315 feet) and Katar Tepe (3300
meters or 10,825 feet);
* At the locality named, the vilayet boun-
dary (according to Khozat-Dersim sheet of the Turkish General Staff map, scale 1:200,000) descends the northern slope of the Monzur- Silsilesi for about 7 kilometers. The junc- tion of the boundary between the Kazas of Erzingan and Kemakh in Erzingan Sandjak of Erzerum Vilayet with the boundary of Dersim Sandjak of Mamuret-ul-Aziz Vilayet lies within 14 kilometers of the Euphrates River. This leaves to Turkey a military bridgehead north of an 11,000-foot mountain range and only 20 kilometers south of the city of Erzingan. I am not empowered to change the administra- tive boundary at this point, and these 40 square kilometers of territory lie out- side of the four vilayets specified in Article 89 of the Treaty of Sèvres.
However, I venture to call the attention of the Boundary Commission to the desirability of consulting the local inhabitants with a view to possible modification of the vilayet boundary at this point.
63
- 60 -
thence northward to the Frat Nehri (Kara Su, or
Euphrates) at a point to be determined on the ground
about 6 kilometers eastward from the village of Kemakh
and approximately 35 kilometers southwestward from the
city of Erzingan,
a line to be fixed on the ground, following the main
water-partings, leaving to Turkey the trail from Pelur in
the Dersim to Kemakh on the Euphrates, and to Armenia the
village of Koja Arbler;
thence, northward to the boundary between the Vilayet
of Erzerum and Trebizond at a point to be determined about
1 kilometer west of peak 2930 (2630? or 8625 feet) and about
4 kilometers southward from the village of Metkut or
approximately 39 kilometers northwestward from the city
of Erzingan,
a line to be fixed on the ground, following the main
water-partings, leaving to Turkey the villages of Chalghy
Yady, Toms, and Alamlik, and to Armenia the village of
Erkghan and the road and col south of the village of
Metkut, passing through Utch Kardash Tepe, Kelek Kiran
(Tekke Tash, 2800 meters or 9185 feet), Kehnam Dagh
(or Kara Dagh, 3030 meters or 9940 feet), dividing equably
between Armenia and Turkey the summit of the pass about
2 kilometers westward from the village of Zazker and,
similarly, the summit of the pass of Kral Khani Boghazy
near the village of Chardakli, passing through point 2760
on Kara Dagh (9055 feet), point 2740 (8990 feet), and a
64
- 61 -
point to be determined on the ground, situated near the
Iky Sivry stream less than 2 kilometers westward from the
Chimen Dagh pass, and located in such a manner as to leave
to Turkey the junction of the two roads leading westward
to the villages of Kuchi Keui and Kara Yayrak, and to
Armenia the junction of two other roads leading to the vil-
lages of Metkut and Kirmana; the Boundary Commission shall
determine in the field the most equable disposition of the
highway between points 2760 and 2740;
thence northwestward to the Kelkit Chai (Kelkit Irmak)
at the point where the boundary between the Vilayets of
Trebizond and Sivas reaches it from the south,
the administrative boundary between the Vilayets of
Trebizond and Erzerum, and then the administrative boun-
dary between the Vilayets of Trebizond and Sivas;
thence northward to an unnamed peak on the boundary
between the Vilayets of Trebizond and Sivas about 4 kilom-
eters southwestward from Borgha Paya (2995 meters or
9825 feet) the latter being situated approximately 38
kilometers southwestward from the city of Gumush-khana,
a line to be fixed on the ground, following the main
water-partings leaving to Armenia the villages of Halkit,
Sinanli, Kiliktin, and Kirtanos; and to Turkey the villages
of Kar Kishla, Sadik, Kara Kia, and Ara, crossing the pass
65
- 62 -
between the western tributaries of the Shiran Chai,
and the eastern headwaters of the Barsak Dere (Kara Chai)
about 43 kilometers eastward from the city of Karahissar
Sharki (Shebin Karahissar);
thence northeastward, northward, and westward to an un-
named peak on the boundary between the Vilayets of Trebizond
and Sivas situated about 7 kilometers northwestward from
Yerchi Tepe (2690 meters or 8825 feet) and approximately
47 kilometers south southeastward from the city of Kerasun,
the administration boundary between the Vilayets of
Trebizond and Sivas;
thence northward, from the point last mentioned, on
the crest of the Pontic Range, to the Black Sea, at a
point to be determined on the seacoast about 1 kilometer
westward from the village of Kesbah, and approximately
9 kilometers eastward from the city of Kerasun,
a line to be fixed on the ground, following the main
water-partings, leaving to Turkey the fields, pastures,
forests, and villages within the drainage basin of the
Komit Dere (Ak Su) and its tributaries, and to Armenia
the fields, pastures, forests, and villages within the
drainage basins of the Yaghaj Dere (Espiya Dera) and the
Venasit Dere (Keshab Dere) and their tributaries, and
drawn in such a manner as to utilize the boundary between
the Kazas of Tripoli (Tireboli) and Kerasun in the 7
kilometers just south of Kara Tepe (1696 meters or 5565
feet), and to provide the most convenient relationships
66
- 63 -
between the new frontier and the trails along the ridges,
as these relationships may be determined by the Boundary
Commission in the field after consultation with the local
inhabitants.
2. In case of any discrepancies between the text of this
Decision and the maps on the scales of 1:1,000,000 and
1:200,000 annexed, the text will be final.
The limits of the four Vilayets specified in Article 89
of the Treaty of Sèvres are taken as of October 29, 1914.
The frontier, as described above, is drawn in red on an
authenticated map on the scale of 1:1,000,000 which is an-
nexed to the present Frontier Decision. The geographical
names here mentioned appear upon the maps accompanying
this text.
The chief authorities used for the names of geographical
features, and of elevations of mountains, and the location of
vilayet, sandjak and kaza boundaries, are the Turkish
General Staff map, scale 1:200,000, and, in part, the British
map, scale.1:1,000,000.
The maps on the scale of 1:200,000 are recommended to
the Boundary Commission, provided in Article 91, for their
use in tracing on the spot the portion of the frontiers of
Armenia established by this Decision.
II
The frontier described above, by assigning the harbor
67
- 64 -
of Trebizond and the valley of the Karshut Su to Armenia,
precludes the necessity of further provision for access for
Armenia to the sea.
III
In addition to the general provisions for the limita-
tion of armaments, embodied in the Military, Naval and Air
Clauses, Part V of the Treaty of Sèvres, the demilitariza-
tion of Turkish territory adjacent to the frontier of
Armenia as above established shall be effected as follows:
The Military Inter-Allied Commission of Control and
Organization provided for in Articles 196-200 of the Treaty
of Sèvres shall appoint the superior officers of the gen-
darmerie stationed in those vilayets of Turkey lying con-
tiguous to the frontiers of the state of Armenia exclusively
from the officers to be supplied by the various Allied or
neutral Powers according to Article 159 of the said Treaty.
These officers shall, in addition to their other
duties, be especially charged with the task of observing
and reporting to the Military Inter-Allied Commission of
Control and Organization upon any tendencies within these
Turkish vilayets toward military aggression against the
Armenian frontier, such as the building of strategic rail-
ways and highways, the establishment of depots of military
supplies, the creation of military colonies, and the use of
propaganda dangerous to the peace and quiet of the adjacent
Armenian territory. The Military Inter-Allied Commission
68
- 65 -
of Control and Organization shall thereupon take such ac-
tion as is necessary to prevent the concentrations and
other aggressive activities enumerated above.
In testimony whereof I have hereunto set my
hand and caused the seal of the United States to be af-
fixed.
(SEAL)
Done in duplicate at the city of
Washington on the twenty-second day of
November, one thousand nine hundred and
twenty, and of the Independence of the
United States the one hundred and forty
fifth.
(Signed) WOODROW WILSON
By the President:
(Signed) BAINBRIDGE COLBY
Secretary of State.
69
- 66 -
VIII
Area, Population, and Economic Character
of the New State of Armenia.
Roughly estimated, the size of the future Republic of
Armenia will be about 60,000 square miles. In equivalent
American areas, it will compare closely to the size of
Illinois or twice the size of Maine. In comparison with
European countries it will be about the size of Czecho-
Slovakia.
In climate and geography the country is most nearly
comparable to Switzerland. Except along the narrow coast-
al strip of Trebizond, it is a mountainous plateau, in
which the arable area will be not more than one-fifth of
the total area. The cultivable land lies chiefly in the
mountain valleys which vary from 3,000 feet to 5,000 feet
above sea level. Some wheat is grown, however, on the
mountain slopes to the level of 7,000 feet.
The pre-war agricultural production of the country
was chiefly in cattle, sheep, and goats; tobacco, chiefly
in the Trebizond and Van regions; wheat; barley; and
legumes. The principal exports from the harbor of Trebi-
zond in the years 1912 and 1913 were in the order of their
value, filberts, tobacco, sheep, and cattle, eggs, beans,
hides, and jerked beef.
70
- 67 -
Complete and trustworthy data upon the mineral re-
sources of the country are not available. It is safe to
say that its prospective mineral production has probably
been exaggerated. But geologists believe that the Armenian
mountains are heavily mineralized and that, with the advan-
tages of a stable government, attracting foreign capital
and able to build railways, the past mineral production
will be greatly increased. As in the past, the chief
mineral wealth of the country will be in salt and copper.
If the Zangezur and Ala Verdi districts of the province of
Erivan fall to the Armenian state in the fixation of the
northern boundaries between the Armenians, the Azerbaijani,
and the Georgians, Armenia will be especially well supplied
with copper.
For the development of industries based upon this
prospective mineral output there is water power, especial-
ly in Trebizond Vilayet, and an important new coal field
north of Olti in Kars province. The total coal resources
of this field are known to be about 200,000,000 tons.
Until the question of the northern borders of Russian
Armenia shall have been decided, any estimate of the pre-
war or present total population and its ethnographic distri-
bution is decidedly problematic. For the purposes of
establishing a rough knowledge of the population and its
ethnic elements we have included the entire provinces of
Erivan and Kars of the former Russian Empire in our calcu-
71
- 68 -
lations, although some portion of these areas will, pre-
sumably, not go to Armenia and the Armenian percentage may
thereby be slightly lowered.
The total pre-war population of the future Armenian
state was, according to our own careful estimates, about
3,570,000. Of these the Moslems, including Turks, Kurds
and Tartars, formed about 49%, the Armenians about 40%, the
Greeks about 4%, the Lazes about 5%. The remaining 1% was
composed of Yezidis, Chaldaean Christians, Russians, etc.
It is problematic whether the Kurds, comprising about 10%
of the pre-war Moslem total of 49%, will be more friendly to
the Armenian aspirations than to the Turkish opposition
thereto. The provision in the Turkish Treaty for an auton-
omous Kurdistan, lying south of Armenia, with the possibility
of independence from Turkey after a year, has changed the
entire political relationship of the Kurds toward the Turks,
though not the religious ties which tend to bind them to
Pan-Moslem interests.
The attitude of the Kurds, both nomad and sedentary,
will be determined somewhat by the amount of influence
which Great Britain will be able to exercise over them
from Mesopotamia, and France in her sphere of interest as
defined in the tripartite convention signed at Sèvres
by Great Britain, France and Italy on August 10th. The
Armenians have always maintained, and continue to assert,
that they will work in amity with the Kurds in the
72
- 69 -
Armenian districts when, once for all, Turkish domination
over them is removed. The Kurds are racially more akin to
the Armenians than to the Anatolian peasantry, and their
various types of Mohammedanism are regarded as distinctly
unorthodox by the Anatolian Turks. At present they are play-
ing their own hand, equally against the Armenians and the
Turks. They form, therefore, an unascertainable political
and ethnic factor in the situation.
The one certain result of the pre-war population
estimates, as given above, is that the Moslems, including
the Lazes, held a majority over the Christians (Armenians
and Greeks) in the area which will be the Armenian State.
Any attempt to estimate the probable population of
the new Armenian state, as it will be after a year of the
shifting of refugees and return of other emigrants, must
in the nature of the case, lead to very doubtful results.
The attempt, however, must be made, in order to calculate,
with what precision may be attained, the probable future
of this state.
We conclude that the population of the entire area
which will make up the Armenian state will have been
reduced, after a year of re-adjustment, from the pre-war
total of 3,570,000 to about 3,000,000. Due to the tre-
mendous losses of the Turkish and Tartar populations by
war casualties, the terrible ravages of diseases (the
73
- 70 -
typhus mortality was well above 50% of those stricken),
of massacres, and refugee movements before the Russian
advance, the Turkish and Tartar elements have suffered in
about equal proportion to the Christian elements. The
Armenian refugees will return in relatively large numbers
into independent Armenia. A lesser number of the Turks
and Tartars who have left these regions will return thither
for permanent residence if the Armenian state is really
established. Considering these elements, our guess is that
the population percentages will have shifted within a year
after the establishment of the new state, as follows:
Turks, Kurds and Tartars, about 40%; Armenians, about
50%; Greeks, about 3%; Lazes, about 6%; with the remaining
1% divided among the Chaldaean Christians, Yezidis, Rus-
sians and others. The relative increase in the Armenian
population should, in the following generation, certainly
be continuous and rapid.
In this area and with the immediate ethnic distribu-
tion estimated above, the greatest element of hope for
the future good of this backward part of the world lies
in the Armenian people. American military observers and
relief workers who have visited the Armenian districts
during the war and the period of the armistice, saw the
country and its peoples when they were at a tremendous
disadvantage. This is especially true of the Armenians.
It is fundamentally correct to start upon the assumption
74
- 71 -
that the conditions of life existing in Turkish Armenia
for the past fifty years, in Russian Armenia more par-
ticularly since the armistice, can have produced no
other result than to lower greatly the moral stamina
and the productive capacity of both Moslem and Christian
inhabitants, and in about equal degree. We have no doubt
that the appointment of a mandatory power would have been
by all odds the best solution for the welfare of this
country. There is grave reason for the apprehension
expressed by General Harbord (Harbord report p. 18) in
regard to the capacity of the Armenians to govern them-
selves and especially to govern the land in conjunction
with the almost equal number of Moslems who will continue
to live within their borders. It is for this reason that
we have recommended the insertion of a clause in Presi-
dent Wilson's report of the boundary decision warning the
Armenian people of the expectation of the civilized world
that there will be no reprisals against the Moslems when
Armenian military forces occupy the four eastern vilayets
of the former Turkish Empire and impressing upon them
the expectation that they will not attempt to rule as
conquerors over subject peoples.
The hope we place in the Armenian people is based
upon the tremendous vitality they have shown under the
outrageous and brutal persecutions of the past fifty
years, their tenacity in respect to their religious
75
- 72 -
beliefs, the capacity conceded to them by all competent
and unprejudiced observers, their industry and thrift, and
their initiative. This belief in the fundamentally sound
character of the Armenians, despite many unattractive traits
appears most markedly in the writings of German travelers
and observers who have studied the country and peoples and
have written numerous books upon them during the first three
years of the war. The eagerness with which the Armenians,
both in their own country and away from it, have grasped
at every opportunity for training and higher education, war-
rants the belief that their undoubted powers of leadership
among the Near Eastern peoples will increase with the respon-
sibilities incurred by independence. Ample provision has
been made in the Minorities Treaty signed by the Armenians
and the Principal Allied Powers upon August 10 at Sèvres
for the protection of the Moslems and the remaining Chris-
tian non-Armenian groups.
Before the war there was but one railway within the
area which will be Armenia, the branch line of the Russian-
Transcaucasian Railway system connecting Tiflis in Georgia
with Alexandropol, Kars and the border town of Sari Kamish,
with a branch from Alexandropol via Erivan and Nakhchivan
to the town of Djulfa on the Persian border. The caravan
and wagon routes have greatly deteriorated since the re-
treat of the Russian forces which occupied almost all of
this territory in the years 1915-1917. Nevertheless the
76
- 73 -
transportation facilities of Armenia have been greatly
increased in consequence of the construction of railways
dictated by the southwestward military advance of Russian
troops. Djulfa has been connected with Tabriz in Persia.
Northern Persia has been brought into railway connection
with Turkish Armenia by spurs which run well into Erzerum
Vilayet and touch also the border between Persia and the
Vilayet of Van. The city and plain of Erzerum in Turkish
Armenia are already tapped by another extension of the
Alexandropol-Kars division of the Russian system running
westward from Sari Kamish. Under Armenian initiative, if
the Armenians can obtain the requisite financial support,
the completion of this last line through to Tireboli may
be confidently expected in the near future. This will give
an immediate impetus to the commercial development of the
Armenian state.
77
- 74 -
IX
The Present Political Situation in the Near
East.
In view of the unfortunate historic and geographic
situation of Armenia, the immediate chances of the suc-
cessful establishment of this state may fairly be open to
question. It lies wedged in between hostile Moslem popu-
lations and is internally permeated with strong and inas-
similable Moslem elements. The great western Powers have
all expressed, or passively acknowledged, their unwilling-
ness or their inability to aid the Armenians in their
present crisis. It is quite evident that the fiat of the
Supreme Council will not exorcise the Turkish Nationalists
out of Erzerum. The problem is a military-political one,
in the solution of which the Armenians stand alone.
RUSSIA
The two great external political factors which, im-
mediately and in the future, will determine the fate of
Armenia are Russia and the British Empire. The imperialis-
tic advance of Russia over Transcaucasia during the nine-
teenth century was continued in her policy during the
World War. The result of the Russian campaigns of 1915
and 1916 brought under Russian occupation almost the entire
area of the four Turkish vilayets assignable to Armenia
78
- 75 -
by the Turkish Treaty. It was partially the apprehension
aroused in the foreign offices of France and Great Britain
by this Russian advance which gave rise to an agreement be-
tween Russia, France, and Great Britain in the spring of 1916
by which the territorial acquisitions or spheres of influ-
ence to be acquired by these Powers in Asiatic Turkey, in
case of a victorious conclusion of the war, were fixed.
The areas of special interest of France and Italy in Anatolia
were definitely assigned on August 10th at Sèvres in the
"Tripartite Convention between the British Empire, France
and Italy relative to Anatolia." The Russian Revolution was
the opportunity out of which the independence of Armenia
arose. The geographic proximity of Russia, the economic
interdependence of Russia and western Asia, and the force
of Russian political tradition, all make it impossible to
conceive an Armenian state free from Russian influence and
interest, whatever the form of the Russian government may
be. This Russian influence may in the end be decidedly
favorable to the maintenance of Armenian independence.
GREAT BRITAIN
Freely granting the humanitarian sympathy of the
British public and government for Armenia, it is necessary
also to evaluate British policy in relation to Armenia
from the standpoint of statecraft. Before the World War
the diplomacy of the British Foreign Office with relation
to the Middle East (Persia, Afghanistan, Baluchistan and
79
- 76 -
India) and the Near East had as its dominating purpose the
defense of the strategic frontier of the British Empire
in its two soft spots, toward India against attack by land
from the west, toward the Suez canal against attack by
land from the east. Essentially these purposes may be re-
garded as one, namely the defense of the Empire of India.
As a result of the war Mesopotamia has been added to the
defensive liabilities of the British Empire under the
mandate granted by the Supreme Council of the Allied Powers.
The Moslem population under British tutelage has been con-
siderably increased. The frontier on land has been greatly
extended and greatly weakened. The acquiescence of Great
Britain in the acknowledgment, on January 10, 1920, by the
Powers then represented upon the Supreme Council, of the
independence of Georgia and Azerbaidjan is, similarly, a
part of her broad Middle Eastern defensive policy. In
line with this policy an independent state of Armenia will
be regarded by Great Britain as one of the buffer states
for the long and weak Mesopotamian line of defense. The
interests of Great Britain, therefore, combine with the
general sympathy of the British public caused by the
Armenian horrors of the past thirty years in forecasting
continued British support of Armenia. For the present the
effectiveness of this support is not great because of the
tremendous strain put upon the British Empire by the heavy
responsibilities it has incurred as a result of the war
80
- 77 -
and the peace terms with the several enemy states.
AZERBAIDJAN
The immediate neighbors of Armenia, under the dominating
shadow of the two great powers, Russia and Great Britain, af-
fect the Armenian situation more directly. These are, upon
the north, the Georgian Democratic Republic and the Azer-
baijan Socialist Republic; upon the east, Persia; upon the
south and west, Kurdistan, a region which, according to Article
62 ff. of the Treaty of Sèvres, will be for the space of a
year an autonomous part of Turkey, thereafter perhaps inde-
pendent; upon the west, Turkey.
The government of Azerbaidjan which was recognized by
the Allied Powers upon January 10, 1920, was the anti-Bolshevik
"Independent Republic of Azerbaidjan." It had proclaimed its
independence of Russia on May 28, 1918. On April 28, 1920,
this government was overthrown and the present Azerbaidjan
Socialist Soviet Republic took its place. The Republic of
Azerbaidjan may be regarded at present as a dependency of
Soviet Russia, although vaguely treated by the Bolshevist
regime as an independent Communist state. A position of advan-
tage was thus gained by Soviet Russia for the projected Bol-
shevist-Tartar-Turkish attack upon the British line of defense
in Persia and Mesopotamia and for the stiffening of the
Nationalist Turkish forces of Mustapha Kemal in
81
- 78 -
Anatolia with Bolshevist reinforcements. The latter move-
ment, if it carried through will be extremely dangerous
to the Armenian state if the Bolshevist leaders are in a
position to enter upon and pursue the plan with any vigor.
There is reason to doubt this ability. The Bolshevist
control of Azerbaidjan since May of this year has been
signalized by a massacre of several thousand Tartars
(estimates from 5,000 to 12,000) in Elisavetpol. This has
had a sobering effect upon Georgia and Armenia and stif-
fened their opposition to Bolshevist propaganda. It has
created a hatred of the Bolshevist regime in Azerbaidjan
itself and weakened Bolshevist influence. This weakening
has been accentuated by the defeat upon the Polish front
and the probability that the internal situation will force
the Bolshevist regime to attempt to recoup its reputation
against the Poles or to deal with General Wrangel in the
Crimea, before beginning serious operations so far afield
as in Transcaucasia and Turkey*.
GEORGIA
The Georgian Democratic Republic concluded a treaty
with Soviet Russia on May 7. An attempt at a coup d’état
* The New York Times of September 4, 1920, prints a communiqué from Trotzky that the Bol- shevist forces have been forced to evacuate Baku. This report has not been officially verified. The general trend of recent reports from the Near East is to minimize the danger of actual Bolshevist military aid to the Tur- kish Nationalists.
82
- 79 -
in Georgia by local Bolshevists assisted by the forces of
the Azerbaidjan Soviet Republic was defeated. The common
danger from Bolshevism has helped to compose the border
disputes between Armenia and Georgia and the relations
between their respective governments are now more friendly
than at any other time since the spring of 1918.
PERSIA
The Persian government, which is under strong British
influence, will certainly not be hostile to the Armenian
state. But the control of the Persian government over the
Tartars of northwest Persia is minimal and the local chief-
tains may always be expected to aid rather than hinder Bol-
shevist-Tartar-Turkish opposition to or attacks upon Ar-
menia. Movements of Bolshevist-Azerbaidjanese troops into
the Vilayet of Erzerum may at any time be effected through
the district of Maku lying just east of Mt. Ararat; and
the Armenian forces, until their occupation of Turkish
Armenian territory shall have taken place, will be utterly
powerless to prevent it.
KURDISTAH
In regard to Kurdistan, the terms of the Turkish
Treaty provide that a Commission of Three is to prepare
a scheme for the autonomy of the Kurdish regions of
Turkey, lying to the south and southwest of the four
83
- 80 -
vilayets. If the Kurdish populations shall, within a year
after the treaty goes into force, address the Council of
the League of Nations with proof that the majority of the
Kurds desire to be independent of Turkey, the Council of
the League has the power to grant this independence. The
details are to be determined by a special convention be-
tween the Principal Allied Powers and Turkey.
Whatever may be the principal objects of these pro-
visions regarding Kurdistan, they have a direct bearing upon
the immediate chances of the successful establishment of the
Armenian state. The possibility of independence thus
presented to the Kurds, who have always been restive under
Turkish domination, must certainly alienate them from the
Turkish nationalist movement led by Mustapha Kemal, which
has as its avowed purpose the maintenance of Turkish control
over as great a part of the old Turkish Empire as possible.
The aims of the Kurds are now allied to those of the Ar-
menians by the fact that the Kurdish desire for independence
has been changed into a definite plan for attainment of
that end. This will probably not mean active support of
the Armenian attempt at occupation of the four vilayets.
It should mean, however, that the Armenians will not have
to meet active hostility upon the part of the 300,000 or
400,000 Kurds resident in the area of the four vilayets, or
the possibility of attack from the Kurds living south of
the Armenian border.
84
- 81 -
For the present the existing Arab outbreaks against
the British forces of occupation in Mesopotamia have nul-
lified the chances of immediate active help to the Ar-
menians from British influence to the south. The Treaty of
Sèvres provides that Mesopotamia is to be independent under
a mandatary to be chosen by the Principal Allied Powers.
This mandatary will be Great Britain. In that case we may
confidently expect a liberal enforcement and development
of the mandatory obligations which the British government
will assume, and that this will gradually result in the
pacification and prosperity of Mesopotamia. For the future
welfare of Armenia the British influence toward the south
will be decidedly favorable.
TURKEY
The Sultan's government at Constantinople has signed
the treaty and is in a position where it must acquiesce in
the treaty's provisions. The actual control over inner
Anatolia lies, however, in the hands of the Nationalist
Turkish party headed by Mustapha Kemal Pasha. The leaders
of this party are honestly and unalterably opposed to the
separation of the Vilayets of Van, Bitlis, Erzerum and
Trebizond from the Turkish Empire. They will probably
put up what fight they can against its enforcement. They
are, however, much more interested in combating the Greek
occupation of the Smyrna district than against the pros-
85
- 82 -
pective Armenian occupation and their troops are massed
chiefly against the Greek, French ant British forces who are
aligned in western Asia Minor and along the zone of
the Straits. The poor showing of the Nationalist forces
before the Greek troops in northwestern Asia Minor in June
has no doubt lowered the morale of the nationalist irreg-
ulars to the extent that this becomes a favorable factor
in the solution of the Armenian problem of occupation.
SUMMARY
The Armenians have a small but well-trained force
ready to advance from Russian Armenia into the four vil-
ayets when the decision of President Wilson is given out.
They have recently been supplied with arms and ammunition.
Despite the Bolshevist coup d'état in Azerbaidjan the
political situation is favorable to their success. They
themselves have confidence in their ability to carry out
the occupation against the weak Nationalist forces in
the four Eastern vilayets of former Turkey. A disturb-
ing and unappraisable factor in the situation is what
the Bolshevist leaders can and will do to assist the Tur-
kish Nationalists in their resistance.
In the absence of mandatory supervision and protect-
tion by one of the great Powers, the continued maintenance
of Armenian independence is precarious. Without such
protection the play of the persistent historic forces,
86
- 83 -
which have always operated in this unhappy region, may
be expected to continue. The chances are that the moun-
tainous plateau of Armenia will again, as so often in the
past, be the point of contact of great historic movements
in the Near and Middle East. If the traditional motives
and methods of our international relations should undergo
same great change, Armenia may more happily come within
the protective orbit of some great power, probably Russia,
and thereby maintain a great measure of its individuality
and independence.
87
- 84 -
X
Immediate Financial Outlook of the Republic
of Armenia.
The estimated pre-war debt of the Turkish Empire that
will be subject to apportionment among states acquiring
Turkish territory is LT 141,106,093. For the fiscal years
1910-11 and 1911-12, the average revenues of that portion
of the territory of the four Turkish vilayets which will
be assigned to the Armenian state was, in round figures,
LT 1,630,000 ($7,172,000), or about 5.4 per cent. of the
total revenues of the Turkish Empire, Assuming a popula-
tion of l,700,000 the estimated per capita contributions
of the inhabitants of the Turkish vilayets ceded to Armenia
will be LT 0.96 ($4.22). For purposes of comparison,
the per capita contributions in the United States, Great
Britain and Bulgaria may be cited. In the year 1919, per
capita contributions in the United States amounted to
$47.00 and in Great Britain to $85.00. Before the war
Bulgaria had per capita revenues of about $11.00, and,
though considered very low, even they are 260 per cent.
greater than the estimated per capita revenues of the
Armenian state.
88
- 85 -
According to Article 241 of the Turkish Treaty all
states acquiring territory from Turkey agree to parti-
cipate in the annual charge for the service of the Ottoman
Public Debt. The amount of these annual charges is to
be fixed by determining the ratio of the average revenue
of such detached territories in the fiscal years 1909-10,
1910-11, and 1911-12 to the average total revenue of the
Turkish Empire for the same years.
On this basis the amount of the Ottoman Public Debt
to be assumed by the Armenian state should be about L T
7,619,729 ($33,526,807). If we may assume that those
areas of Armenia which were detached from Turkey will
produce, in the succeeding years, approximately the same
annual revenues as before the war (L T 1,630,000 or
$7,172,000), the service of the Ottoman Public Debt will
consume L T 489,467 ($2,153,654) of this amount. The
surplus of revenue from this area available to the
Armenian state for general administrative purposes
would be L T 1,140,533 ($5,018,545). This may be com-
pared with the pre-war situation in Bulgaria which had
an estimated area of 43,300 square miles and population
of 4,750,000, with a debt of $300,000,000 and debt charges
of $15,000,000.
In making this general and problematic estimate of
the resources which should be available for Armenia, our
89
- 86 -
calculations have not included the Armenian territory of
the former Russian provinces of Kars and Erivan. For
we assume that some fair portion of the pre-war debt of
Russia will later be assigned to the Armenian state, as
was done in the case of Poland (Article 21 of the Polish
Treaty), and as would be entirely just in the case of
Armenia. This unknown obligation of Armenia has pre-
cluded any attempt to estimate, even roughly, the debt
and revenues of the Armenian state as a whole.
The figures given above are entirely inadequate and
unsatisfactory, as we know. They may serve, however, to
indicate that the financial outlook of Armenia is not
bright. Yet it is not desperate. The Republic of
Armenia will need, especially in the first decade of
its existence, able and conservative financial leader-
ship, which will avoid pretentious governmental enter-
prises of all kinds. In case no mandatary power is
assigned to Armenia, such leadership may possibly be
found among Armenian financial experts, especially those
already trained in the public service of the Turkish Em-
pire. But sympathetic and disinterested encouragement
from without is essential. By its technical advice,
and possibly by small loans, the government of the
United States could be of the greatest service to Ar-
menia during the early years of its independence.
90
A P P E N D I C E S
TO THE REPORT
OF THE
COMMITTEE UPON THE ARBITRATION OF THE BOUNDARY
BETWEEN TURKEY AND ARMENIA
91
C O N T E N T S
APPENDIX TO SECTION I OF THE REPORT
Documents upon the Request for the Arbitral Decision
Appendix I
Number 1: Allied Recognition of Armenia – January 19, 1920.
Number 2: Report of London Technical Commission – February
24, 1920.
Number 3: Note from the French Ambassador at Washington –
March 12, 1920.
Number 4: Mr. Colby’s reply to the above – March 24, 1920.
Number 5: American Recognition of Armenia – April 23, 1920.
Numbers 6 Telegrams from San Remo – April 24-27, 1920.
To 10:
Number 11: The President’s Acceptance of the Invitation to
Arbitrate – May 17, 1920.
°°°°°°°°°°°°
92
APPENDIX TO SECTION III OF THE REPORT
Appendix III
Maps Used in Determining the Actual Boundaries
of the Four Vilayets and in Drawing the Frontier
of Armenia.
°°°°°°°°°°°°
APPENDIX TO SECTION IV OF REPORT
Appendix IV
The Question of Kharput.
Discussion of the Possibility of Including
Kharput in the Boundary Decision.
°°°°°°°°°°°°
93
APPENDIX TO SECTION V OF THE REPORT
The Necessity of Supplying an Unimpeded Sea Ter-
minal in Trebizond Sandjak.
Appendix V
Number 1: Economic Position of Ports in the Trebizond
Vilayet.
Number 2: Railroad Project for Turkish Armenia before
the War (Karshut Valley).
Number 3: M. Venizelos’ Statement on Trebizond before
the Council of Ten (February 4, 1919).
Number 4: M. Venizelos’ Statement on Trebizond before
the Greek Parliament (May 13, 1920).
Number 5: The Petition of the Pontic Greeks (July 10,
1920).
Number 6: The Greeks of Pontus (Population Estimates
for Trebizond Vilayet).
Number 7: General Discussion of Armenia’s Access to
the Sea.
Number 8: Text of the Armenian Minorities Treaty.
Number 9: The Petition to President Wilson from the
Armenian Delegation.
°°°°°°°°°°°°
94
APPENDIX TO SECTION VII OF THE REPORT
APPENDIX VII
Status of the Old Boundary between Turkey and
Persia, at the Point where the Boundary be-
Tween Turkey (Autonomous Area of Kurdistan)
and Armenia Joins It.
°°°°°°°°°°°
APPENDIX TO SECTION IX OF THE REPORT
APPENDIX IX
Military Situation with Relation to Armenia.
Estimate for August, 1920.
°°°°°°°°°°°
APPENDIX TO SECTION X
APPENDIX X
Financial Position of that Portion of the
Four Vilayets Assigned to the New State of
Armenia.
°°°°°°°°°°°°
95
M A P S
Number 1: Boundaries of Armenia, as proposed by the
London Inter-Allied Commission of Feb- ruary 1920 (See Appendix I, No. 2).
2: Armenian Claims (See Appendix IV).
Original Claim of the Armenian National Delegation at the Peace Conference; Reduced Claim of the two Armenian Dele-
gations, since January, 1920; Boundary established by President Wil-
son’s Decision. 3: Claims of the Pontic Greeks (See Appendix V,
Nos. 3, 4, 5).
Original Claim at Peace Conference; Reduced Claim, 1920; Greek Territory in Thrace and in Smyrna District Boundary established by President Wilson's Decision.
4: Armenia's Routes of Access to the Sea (See
Appendix V, Nos. 2, 4, 9). Trebizond-Erzerum Caravan Route; Trebizond-Erzerum Railway Project; Western frontier Essential to Armenia.
5: Armenia in Relation to the new Turkish
Empire (See Appendix IX).
Frontiers of Turkey as established by the Treaty of Sèvres and by Presi- dent Wilson's Decision;
Areas of Especial Interest as estab- lished by the Tripartite Convention Of August 10, 1920, between Great Britain, France and Italy;
Existing Railways.
96
Appendix 1
Number 1
(Extract Paraphrased)
ALLIED RECOGNITION OF ARMENIA
Paris,
19 January 1920
Wallace to Lansing:
File No. 763.72119/8740 conf.
A meeting of the Supreme Council was held this morn-
ing, with Clemanceau presiding. Marshal Foch was also
present; and, for Great Britain, Field Marshal Wilson,
Admiral Beatty, Lord Curzon, Winston Churchill and Long...2
The representatives of Azerbaidjan and Georgia were
heard with regard to the situation in the Caucasus.
Tseretelli advised that Daghestan and Armenia be ac-
corded de facto recognition.
The Georgian and Azerbaidjani representatives having
withdrawn, and after further discussion, the Council
decided as follows:
"It is agreed: (1) that the government of
the Armenian State shall be recognized as a de
facto government on the condition that this recog-
nition in no way prejudges the question of the
eventual frontier. (2), that the allied govern-
ments are not prepared to send to the Trans-
2 The name is missing in the original text. Probably it was the first Lord of the Admiralty Walter Hume Long. (A.P.)
97
- 2 -
caucasian states the three divisions contem-
plated by the Inter-Allied committee. (3)
(a) to accept the principle of sending to the
Caucasian States arms munitions and if pos-
sible food. (b) Marshal Foch and Field Marshal
Wilson are invited to consider of what these
supplies shall consist and the means for their
despatch.
“The American and Japanese representatives
will refer these decisions to their respective
Governments."
98
Appendix I
Number 2
REPORT AND PROPORSALS OF THE COMMISSION
FOR THE DELIMITATION OF THE BOUNDARIES OF ARMENIA.
- - -
Composition of the Commission
_______________
BRITISH EMPIRE
Mr. R. Vansittart, M. V. O.
Colonel W. H. Gribben, C. M. G., C. B. E.
FRANCE
M. Kammerer.
Colonel Chardigny.
ITALY
M. Galli.
Colonel Castoldi.
JAPAN
Lieutenant Commander Anno.
99
Commission for the Delimitation
of the Boundaries of Armenia.
London.
24th February, 1920.
After having heard the statements of the
Georgian and Armenian Delegations, the Commission has
drawn up the present report on the boundaries of the
future State of Armenia.
I.
In fixing the extent of territory to be al-
lotted to Armenia three factors must be taken into ac-
count:-
(1) The number of Armenians that it will
be possible to bring back into Turkish Armenia. Ac-
cording to the data at present available, this number
does not exceed 500,000 of whom 150,000 are refugees
in Russian Armenia, while the rest are in Turkey or
would come from Persia, Bulgaria or America. The
Armenian territory must therefore not be too exten-
sive in order that the American3 element may rapidly
obtain preponderance. The proposed boundaries make
allowance for the possibilities of the expansion
of the race. Armenia, as delimited below by the
Commission, exceeds its present possibilities. At
3 = Armenian (A.P.)
100
2
the time of its creation it would have a population of
approximately 1,200,000 Armenians in Russian Armenia
and 500,000 in Turkish Armenia, in all less than 2 mil-
lion persons.
2)Strategical reasons.
The frontier of the new state ought not to
Be too extensive in proportion to its population and
should be easily capable of defence. From this point
of view it would have been desirable to include Treb-
izond and Erzinjan within Armenian territory, both
forming advantageous point for the concentration of
enemy forces, while their approaches are easy of
defence, on the one side on the road from the coast,
on the other side in the defiles traversed by the two
roads which lead from Erzinjan to Kemak and Enderes.
The Commission has, however, considered that it is not
expedient, for ethnographical and political reasons,
to deprive the Turks of a district in which they have
always been greatly in the majority, and where the Ar-
menians only represent a small fraction of the popula-
tion. Finally the existence on the eastern frontier of
Armenia of the Tartar State of Azerbaijan, which as a
matter of fact, has always been hostile to it, is a fur-
ther reason for not unduly extending the boundary of Armenia
101
3
towards the West, so that the length of her principal
line of communication from West to East may be diminish-
ed, and too many non-Armenian elements may not be intro-
duced into the territory which the Armenians may be
called upon to defend.
3) The necessity for ensuring Armenia an
Outlet to the sea.
From this point of view, Armenia is in a very
unfavorable situation, since before the war the Ar-
menian population did not extend as far as the Sea.
It is therefore necessary that this diffi-
culty should be overcome by the expedients suggested
below.
II
Notwithstanding the desire of the Commission to
give Trebizond to Armenia in order that she may be en-
sured her own outlet to the Sea, the considerations set
forth in paragraphs l and 2 have induced the Commission
to propose that Trebizond and Erzinjan should be left
to Turkey, as well as the road by which they are con-
nected.
The Commission has considered the possibility
of incorporating the mining district of Gumush Khaneh
with Armenia, but as this district is crossed by the
road from Erzinjan to Trebizond, which constitutes the
outlet of the region of Erzinjan to the sea, the
102
4
incorporation of the district of Gumush Khaneh with
Armenia appeared to be incompatible with the mainte-
nance of the region of Erzinjan and Trebizond under
Turkish rule.
The boundary between Armenia and the free
State of Batum must be determined on the spot by an
Interallied Commission, on the principle that the
State of Batum shall be as small as possible and that
the Kars-Ardahan-Batum road shall belong to Armenia
as far as the frontier of that state. The attached
map indicates two possible lines.
As regards the boundary between the State
of Armenia and Georgia and Azerbaijan, the Commission
considers that, it is advisable for the present to
await the results of the agreement, provided for in
the treaties existing between the three Republics,
in regard to the delimitation of their respective
frontiers by the States themselves.
In the event of these Republics not arriv-
ing at an agreement respecting their frontiers, resort
must be had to arbitration by the League of Nations,
which would appoint an interallied Commission to set-
tle on the spot the frontiers referred to above,
taking into account, in principle, of ethnographical
data.
103
5
The proposed boundaries on the North, South
and West are given in the annex hereto.
In order to give Armenia an outlet to the
sea, and since it appears necessary that Trebizond
should remain Turkish, the Commission submits the fol-
lowing propositions: -
(1) Creation of a Free State of Batum, with
which Armenia would be in direct contact through the
Valley of Chorok, through which the railway to be con-
structed between Kars and Batum is eventually to pass.
On the other hand, the frontier between
Georgia and Armenia would be fixed in such a way that
the present road from Kars to Batum via Ardahan and
Artvin would remain in Armenian territory, as far as
the Free State of Batum, with a sufficient zone of
protection on the north.
Batum would thus be the free port of Trans-
Caucasia, of Armenia and of the eastern portion of
Lazistan (see below).
It has since been decided to drop the pre-
vision of autonomy for Lazistan. The people are not
really in a fit state to exercise it: and Armenia
has moreover agreed to sign the treaty drafted by
us, giving very ample assurance for the protection
of the interests of minorities. This fully covers
Lazistan and there is no reason why the Lazes should
104
6
have any special regime of their own as com-
pared with the other minorities elsewhere in Armenia
who are certainly much more advanced then the Lazes.
(2) Creation of an autonomous State of
Lazistan under the nominal suzerainty of Armenia, who
may in future convert into carriage roads the bad
roads from Baiburt to Surmenek and Of (which latter
was constructed by the Russian Army during the war).
These roads are included in the zone which would be
allotted to the autonomous State of Lazistan.
Lazistan is a mountainous country, inhabited
by a primitive, uncultivated Moslem population, of
Georgian origin, it is true, (Lazes to the west, Ajars
to the East) but with no Georgians sympathies, as was
proved by the events of 1914 and 1918. These people,
whose leanings are if anything Turkish, were as a
matter of fact not very submissive to Turkish rule
before the war. Their chief desire is to live as
independently as possible.
(3) Right for Armenia to the free use of
the road from Erzerum and Baiburt to Trebizond, which,
with Platana, would be a port in which would
enjoy special privileges for her import and export trade.
In the Hinterland of Trebizond between
Tereboli, Ardasa and Surmench (1) the Turks would not
(1) see attached map.
105
7
be entitled either to maintain troops or to keep stores
of munitions; the present fortifications of Trebizond
would have to be demolished.
IV.
The Commission wishes to lay stress on the
fact that, in its opinion, the creation of an Armenian
State including territory formerly Turkish would appear
possible only under the two following conditions: -
(1)Turkish troops to be withdrawn from
the zone allotted to Armenia within a period to be
determined by the Allies.
The Turks will not in present conditions
withdraw their troops unless very strong pressure is
brought to bear. It is beyond the functions of the
Commission to indicate the means to be adopted for
exercising such pressure, but it is its duty to call
attention to this point, in order that the necessary
steps may be considered.
(2) Even if the Turkish troops evacuate
the formerly Turkish zone allotted to Armenia, the
Commission feels bound the point out that the forma-
tion of an Armenian State will be extremely difficult
without the presence of European troops. Should
none of the powers be willing to furnish these
troops, the only solution would be to supply Armenia
106
8
with all the officers and material necessary for the
creation of a solid national army, stiffened, if pos-
sible, by volunteers recruited from among the Allied
and Associated Powers.
(3) In any event, the protection of the
League of Nations should be assured to Armenia, in
order that she may be supplied with all material aids
to continued existence and economic development.
- - - - -
Appended hereto is (1) a map showing the
boundaries of Armenia on the territory that was
Turkish in 1914 (the proposal of the Commission);
(3) map showing approximate boundaries
between Armenia, Georgia and Azerbaijan, and the ter-
ritory in dispute between them;
(4) A map showing the two solutions sug-
gested for the area of the Free State of Batum.
107
9
A N N E X
Proposed line of the Western boundaries of
Armenia.
(a)Northern Boundary. The ridge of the
Pontic mountain chain from a point to the north-west
of Mezra to the former Russo-Turkish frontier. This
ridge now marks the boundary between the vilayets of
Trebizond and Erzerum. 1)
(b)Western Boundary. From the ridge of
the Pontic mountain chain to the north-west of Mezra
to the pass on the Baiburt road, following the present
boundary of the vilayets of Trebizond and Erzerum as
far as Phor; then in a straight line as far as
Almali; the Baghir Dagh, Shaitin Dagh and Chavresh
Dagh ridges; a line passing to the west of Ognet, fol-
lowing the course of the Murad Su as far as Ardushan
and ending at the southern watershed of the Murad
Su, 20 kilometres west of Mush in such a way as to
leave within Armenian territory the road between
Almali, Fam, Milikhan and Bashkei to the valley of
the Charbukhur Su, to the west of Bingol Dagh.
1). This would from the southern boundary of the auto-
nomous State of Lazistan, whose western frontier has
been brought as far as the western valley of Surmanch, in
order to include the roads from Baiburt to Of and Surmench.
108
10
(c) Southern Boundary. The watershed
bordering on the south the Mush plain, Bitlis and its
environs remaining within Armenian territory then the
ridge of the heights bordering the southern bank of
lake Van, including the high-lying valley of the Clgindig
Su as far as Saris, the southern ridge of the Khoshab
Su valley as far as Barajul Dagh. From here the boun-
dary is formed by the line of heights taking a north-
easterly direction and ending at the Persian frontier
south-west of Kotur in such a way as to leave the high
lying valley of Bashkala to the Kurds. The former
Turco-Persian frontier as far as Mt. Ararat. The
former Russo-Persian frontier from Mt. Ararat to a
point to be determined on the Aras below Julfa, where
the boundary of Azerbaijan will begin.
A technical description of the foregoing
lines is also appended.
FRONTIERS OF ARMENIA
From a point to be selected on the southern
shore of the Black Sea about 1 kilometre west of the
mouth of the Yanboli Dere in a south-south-westerly
direction to a point to be chosen on CHAKAR GEUL DAGH,
the line of heights forming the western limit
of the basin of the YANBOLI DERE;
109
11
thence in a south-easterly direction to the
point of the salient of the western boundary of the
VILAYET OF ERZERUM about 4 kilometres south-west of
ZELFEH DAGH,
the line of heights forming the watershed between
the basins of the KHARSHIT DERE and the YANBOLI DERE;
thence in a south-south-westerly direction to a
point to be selected on HATAB DAGH,
the western boundary of the VILAYET OF ERZERUM;
thence in a easterly direction to the junction of
the POLUK CHAI with the KARA SU about 10 kilometres
north of BAGHIR PASHA DAGH,
the course of the KARA SU down stream;
thence to a point on the BIYUK SU about 12
kilometres north of KIGHI;
a line reaching and following as far as possible
the line of heights BAGHIR PASHA DAGH, SULTAN DAGH, AKTASH
and GHABARTI DAGH;
thence in a general south-easterly direction to a
point on the Geunik Su about 10 kilometres south-east
of OGHNUT,
a line reaching and following as far as possible
the line of heights SHAITAN DAGH and CHORISH DAGH;
thence in a general southerly direction to the
junction of the MASLA DERE and MURAD SU,
110
12
a line following the watershed between the MASLA
DERE and GEUNIK SU;
thence to a point to be chosen on the MURAD SU
about 15 kilometres east of ARDUSHIN,
the course of the MURAD SU up stream;
thence in a general south-easterly direction to a
point to be chosen on the RU SU about 1 kilometre north-
west of TATVAN, a line reaching and following as far as
possible the line of heights KOZMA DAGH, KURTIK DAGH,
KACH RASH DAGH and KAMRAN TEPE;
thence in a south-easterly direction to a point
to be chosen on the BITLIS SU about 2 kilometres west
of SHETEK,
a line reaching and following as far as possible
the line of heights SHEIKH OMAR TEPE and KAMBUS DAGH;
thence in an easterly direction to a point about
3 kilometres south of OLHK SIFLA (OLEK ASHAGHI) where a
stream joins the GUZEL DERE,
a line reaching and then following as far as
possible the watershed between the BITLIS SU and the
GUZEL DERE,
thence eastwards to the point where the KARA SU
and EJKIS DERE meet about 7 kilometres east of the
village of KARASU SIFLA,
a line passing through KURDAGH and following the
111
13
southern limits of the basins of the TASIK DERE
and KARA SU;
thence eastwards to the point of junction of the
DARNIS DERE with the stream flowing from PASHANDASHT DUZ,
a line reaching and then following as far as pos-
sible the southern limit of the basin of the EJEKIS DERE,
then the southern limit of the basins of the rivers which
flow into VAN GEUL, then the watershed between the
PASHANDASHT DUZ and the DARNIS DERE;
thence eastward to point 3050 (ref. Turkish Staff
Map), a line to be fixed on the ground following as far
as possible the DARNIS DERE downstream;
thence north-eastwards to VAVIRAN DAGH,
a line following the line of heights to the west
of the SHATAK SU;
thence in a general easterly direction to SHAKULANS
DAGH,
a line following the northern and northeastern limits
of the basin of the SHATAK SU and passing through KUSH
DAGH, BASHIT DAGH, and KUCHKIRAN DAGH;
thence northwards and then eastwards to a point to
be chosen on the salient made by the old frontier be-
tween Turkey and Persia about 4 kilometres south of
KARA HISSAR,
a line following the watershed between the ZAB SU
112
14
on the east and the KHOSHAB SU on the west;
thence northwards to AGHRI DAGH (Ararat), the old
frontier between Turkey and Persia.
Boundary of Demilitarized Area.
From a point on the southern shore of the BLACK SEA
3 kilometres southwest of TIREBOLI southwards and then
eastwards to the point where it meets the western
boundary at the VILAYET of ERZERUM,
the western and southern limits of the basin of
the KHARSHIT SU;
thence northwards to the BLACK SEA,*
the northwestern frontier of ARMENIA as it may be
determined by the Principal Allied and Associated Powers.
[On the map showing the various frontiers suggested
for the state of Batum it has been agreed that the small-
est (that drawn in red) in the only practical one.]
* The Demilitarized Area described above covers only half as much territory as the De- militarized Area shown upon the appended map (G.S.G.S. № 2944).
113
Appendix I
Number 3
(Copy of translation)
EMBASSY OF THE FRENCH REPUBLIC
TO THE UNITED STATES
Washington
March 12, 1920
Mr. Secretary of State:
I have had the honor orally to inform Your Excel-
lency on the 9th of this month that the work of fram-
ing the peace treaty with Turkey had progressed far
enough in the London Conference to make it possible to
think of calling the Turkish delegates at an early date.
I told you then how glad mу Government would be to know,
as soon as possible, whether the Government of the United
States, which takes nO part in the said conferences, in-
tends to disclaim interest in the Eastern affairs or,
on the contrary, proposes, as the President of the Council
would much prefer, to claim its share of influence, ac-
tivities and responsibilities in the final restoration
of universal peace.
Upon your alluding to the nature of the contem-
plated solutions, I telegraphed to my Government, which
puts me in position to let you know that they are as
follows:
1–Frontier of Turkey in Europe: The Enos-Midia
His Excellency
The Honorable Frank L. Polk,
Acting Secretary of State.
114
- 2 -
of more likely Tchataldja line.
2-Frontier of Turkey in Asia: In the North and
West, the Black Sea, the Sea of Marmora, the Mediter-
ranean Sea. In the East, the frontier of the Armenian State.
In the South, the stream of the Djaihun Irmak (Cilicia)
and a line running north of Aintab, Biredjik, Urfa,
Mardin and Djesireh-Ibn-Omar.
3-Zone of the Straits: The Turkish Sultan and
Government will be maintained at Constantinople, that
decision however being conditioned on the execution of
the terms of peace and оbsеrvаncе of the guarantees
thereby stipulated in favor of the minorities. There
shall be no Turkish troops, except the Sultans bodyguard,
left in Constantinople.
The right of a military occupation of Turkey in
Europe and of a zone South of the Straits and of the
Sea of Marmora will be reserved to the Allies.
An international Commission will be created, with
executive and financial powers to secure the freedom
of the Straits that will be guaranteed in peace as in
war. The Commission, which shall exercise its powers
in the name of and by delegation from the Sultan, will
have its own flag and budget, with power to borrow
money on its revenues. It will collect taxes levied
on the basis of the complete equality of all countries.
It will do the works required for navigation and be
115
- 3 -
vested with naval police rights. France, England,
Italy and eventually the United States and Russia
will each have a representative on the Commission
commanding two votes. Roumania, Greece, and ultima-
tely Bulgaria will have a representative with one vote.
None but the representative of one of the Great Powers
can hold the office of President. Several other ques-
tions, particularly those connected with the passage
of warships and the regime of the Straits in war time
are still under advisement. If Greek territory should
stretch to the Sea of Marmora, the Greek shore would
be under the same regime as the Turkish shore.
4 - Greek sovereignty will be set over such part
of Thrace as is not left to the Turks. Special guar-
antees will be granted to Ottomans at Adrianople. A
free port will be set apart for the Bulgarians.
5 - A special arrangement concerning the three
great Mediterranean Powers is in preparation for the
purpose of reserving to each in a determined region a
preferential right in the matter of furnishing advice
and instructors.
6 - The independence of Armenia which shall perfect
her financial and military organization with the as-
sistance of the League of Nations will be recognized.
Special rights over Lazistan will guarantee her outlet
116
- 4 -
to the sea.
Turkey would relinquish all rights to Mesopotamia,
Arabia, Palestine, Syria and all the Islands.
7 - Smyrna and a zone not including Aidin would be
administered by the Greeks under the Sultan's suzerainty.
The port shall be free and one portion specially set
apart for the Turks.
8 - In the field of economics many questions have
only received preliminary examination and met with
difficulties that will have to be solved by the Supreme
Council. But an agreement has been reached on the fol-
lowing points: liquidation of German property in
Turkey; continuance of the concessions granted to aliens
in territories undergoing a change of sovereignty, except
that if there be occasion the concessions may be revised
or canceled upon payment of an indemnity; creation of a
financial commission charged with the supervision of
all the revenues and expenditures of Turkey, continuance
of the administration of the Ottoman Public Debt and
of the privilege of holders of bonds of that debt on
the securities that have been pledged to them; reim-
bursement of the cost of military occupation restricted
to the occupation of territories that are to stay Turkish.
These are substantially the points upon which the
Powers represented at the London Conferences have reached
117
- 5 -
a preliminary understanding.
Be pleased to accept, Mr. Secretary of State, the
assurances of my high consideration.
JUSSERAND.
118
Appendix I
Number 4
DEPARTMENT OF STATE
WASHINGTON
March 24,192О
Excellency:
I have the honor to acknowledge the receipt of
Your Excellency's note of March twelfth, relative to
the conferences regarding the Peace Treatу with
Turkey and the present status of the negotiations
between the principal Allied Powers, and in reply to
inform yon that the President does not deem it advis-
able in the present circumstances that the United States
be represented by a Plenipotentiary at the conference.
The President feels, however, that as this Government
is vitally interested in the future peace of the world,
it should frankly express its views on the proposed
solutions of the difficult questions connected with
the Turkish Treaty. While it is true that the United
States of America was not at war with Turkey, yet it
was at war with the principal allies of that country
and contributed to the defeat of those allies and,
therefore, to the defeat of the Turkish Government.
For that reason, too, it is believed that it is the
His Excellency,
J. J. Jusserand,
Ambassador of the French Republic.
119
- 2 -
duty of this Government to make known its views and
urge a solution which will be both just and lusting.
The Government of the United States understands
the strength of the arguments for the retention of
the Turks at Constantinople, but believes that the
arguments against it are far stronger and contain
certain imperative elements, which it would not seem
possible to ignore. It was the often expressed in-
tention of the Allies that the anomaly of the Turks
in Europe should cease, and it cannot be believed
that the feelings of the Mohammedan people, who not
only witnessed the defeat of the Turkish power with-
out protest, but even materially assisted in the de-
feat, will now so resent the expulsion of the Turkish
Government as to make a complete reversal of policy
on the part of the great Powers desirable or neces-
sary.
As to the line given as the southern frontier
of Turkey, it is assumed that this boundary is meant
to be the ethnological frontier of the Arab people,
in which case, it is suggested, certain rectifica-
tions would seem necessary. If, however, other con-
siderations entered into the choice of this line,
this Government, without any intention to criticize,
would appreciate being furnished with the arguments
120
- 3 -
dictating such a choice.
The Government of the United States notes with
pleasure that provision is made for Russian represent-
tation оn the International Council, which it is pro-
posed shall be established for the Government of Con-
stantinople and the Straits. This Government is con-
vinced that no arrangement that is now made concerning
the government and control of Constantinople and the
Straits can have any elements of permanency unless the
vital interests of Russia in those problems are careful-
ly provided for and protected, and unless it is under-
stood that Russia, when it has a Government recognized
bу the civilized world, may assert its right to be heard
in regard to the decisions now made.
It is noted with pleasure that the questions of
passage of war ships and the regime of the Straits in
wartime are still under advisement as this Government
is convinced that no final decision should or can be
made without the consent of Russia.
As for Thrace, it would seem right that that part
of East Thrace, which is outside of the zone reserved
for Constantinople, should become part of the Kingdom
of Greece with the exception of the northern part of
that province. As this, the northern part, is clearly
Bulgarian in population, justice and fair dealing
121
- 4 -
demand that the cities of Adrianople and Kirk Kilisseh
and the surrounding territory should become part of
Bulgaria. Not only is the claim of Bulgaria worthy
of most serious consideration on ethnic and historical
grounds, but it would also seem that Bulgaria is en-
titled to have its claim to this territory favorably
considered in view of its having been compelled to sur-
render purely Bulgarian territory and many thousands
of Bulgars on its western boundary on no other grounds
than the rather doubtful grounds of securing a stra-
tegic frontier for Serbia.
In connection with the proposed preferential right
of the three great Mediterranean Powers to furnish ad-
visers and instructors in certain zones, this Government
feels that it is necessary for it to have more informa-
tion as to the reason and purpose of such a plan before
it can express an intelligent opinion.
There can be no question as to the genuine inter-
est of this Government is the plans for Armenia, and
the Government of the United States is convinced that
the civilized world demands and expects the most liberal
treatment for that unfortunate country. Its boundaries
should be drawn in such a way as to recognize all the
legitimate claims of the Armenian people and partic-
ularly to give them easy and unencumbered access to
the sea. While unaware of the considerations governing
122
- 5 -
decision reached bу the Supreme Council, it is felt
that special rights over Lazistan would hardly assure
to Armenia that access to sea indispensable to
its existence. It is hoped that, taking into con-
sideration the fact that Trebizond has always been the
terminus of the trade route across Armenia and that
Mr. Venizelos, on behalf of the Greeks of that region,
has expressed their preference for connection with
Armenia rather than Turkey, the Powers will be willing
to grant Trebizond to Armenia.
In regard to the relinquishment by Turkey of her
rights to Mesopotamia, Arabia, Palestine, Syria, and
the Islands, this Government suggests that the method
resorted to in the case of Austria be adopted, namely,
that Turkey should place these provinces in the hands
of the great Powers, to be disposed of as those Powers
determine.
In regard to the arrangement for Smyrna, this
Government is not in a position to express an opinion
as the question is too important to be passed on with
the limited information this Government has as to the
exact arrangement that is contemplated and the reasons
for the same.
The Government of the United States can quite un-
derstand the difficulties that have confronted the
Supreme Council in dealing with the economic questions
123
- 6 -
that present themselves for settlement in connection
with this Treaty. It is easy to see that the problems
are complex and fruitful of misunderstanding because
of the conflicting interests involved, but this Gover-
nment has every confidence that the problems will be
dealt with in a spirit of fairness and with scrupulous
regard for the commercial interests of victor, vanquished
and neutral.
It is evident that there is yet much to be done
before a comprehensive plan can be worked out and this
Government will welcome further information on the sub-
ject of the economic clauses of this Treaty. Incidental-
ly, the plan that has apparently been worked out by the
Supreme Council in connection with continuation of con-
cessions granted to aliens and giving the right to revise
or cancel concessions on payment of indemnity, referred
to in the eighth paragraph of Your Excellency's note,
has grave possibilities and would seem to require care-
ful elucidation.
Let me say in conclusion that it is the understand-
ing of the Government of the United States that whatever
territorial changes or arrangements may be made in the
former Ottoman Empire, such changes or arrangements will
in no way place American citizens or corporations, or
the citizens or corporations of any other country in a
124
- 7 -
less favorable situation than the citizens or corpor-
ations of any Power party to this Treaty.
Accept, Excellency, the renewed assurance of my
highest consideration.
(Signed) BAINBRIDGE CILBY
125
Appendix I
Number 5
April 23, 1920
No.
Sir:
Referring to communications heretofore received
from you on the subject of the proposed recognition
of your Government by the Government of the United
States, I am pleased to inform you, and through you,
your Government, that, by direction of the President,
the Government of the United States recognizes, as of
this date, the de facto Government of the Armenian
Republic.
This action is taken, however, with the understand-
ing that this recognition in no way predetermines the
territorial frontiers, which, it is understood, are
matters for later delimitation.
Accept, Sir, the assurances of my highest consider-
ation.
Bainbridge Colby,
Secretary of State.
Dr. G. Pasdermadjian,
Representative of the Armenian Republic,
Congress Hall Hotel,
Washington, D. C.
126
Appendix I
Number 6
(Extract Paraphrased)
San Remo
24 April 1920
Johnson to Colby:
File № 763.72119/9728
This afternoon when I entered the Conference I
found that the question of mandates was being con-
sidered. The agenda included: (1) Boundaries of
Armenia, (2) Mandates, (3) Hedjas, (4) Report of the
Drafting Committee, (5) Russia. Point (1) had al-
ready been discussed. I am informed that, on Lloyd
George’s suggestion, I shall tonight be asked to
submit the Council’s decision to the President. It
would appear that Armenia is to have an outlet to the
sea via Batum ---.
127
Appendix I
Number 7
(Extract Paraphrased)
San Remo
25 April 1920
Johnson to Colby:
File № 763.72119/9726
These points were considered at today’s meeting of
eleven A. M.: (1) Mandates, (2) Armenia, (3) Hejas,
(4) Russia...
(2) While Armenia did not figure on the Agenda,
a Resolution previously proposed was brought up again
and passed. The gist of this resolution was, first, to
request the United States to take over the Armenian
mandate, and, second, to invite the President - in case
America refuses the mandate - to settle the boundaries
between Turkey and Armenia. The Council agreed that
I. rather than Nitti, the Chairman, should forward
this paper. I shall see Curzon about it tomorrow morn-
ing and report by telegraph as promptly as may be. As
the Treaty is to be handed the Turks on May 10th, Lloyd
George said that it would be highly advantageous to
have a reply regarding the mandate before that date.
He said further that he had received reports of ad-
ditional massacres in Cilicia and of the withdrawal of
the French. Millerand taxed the Armenians with exag-
geration and declared that there might be military
128
- 2 -
movements in Cilicia but that there was no question
of evacuating...
129
Appendix I
Number 8
(Paraphrase)
San Remo
26 April 1920
Johnson to Colby:
File № 763.72119/9746
In confidential conversation with an important
personage, I have just heard the story of what bas
been happening with regard to Armenia. The drafting
of the Turkish treaty was referred, at а meeting of
the Supreme Council held in London in January, to a
conference of Ambassadors under the Chairmanship of
Lord Curzon. Thus was the ground prepared for San
Remo. An expert commission submitted to the con-
ference of Ambassadors a report on frontiers, etc.,
which has not been made public. Van, Bitlis, Mush,
the province of Erzerum, and Lazistan, were to be
added to Armenia. Trebizond was not included for
fear the Armenians would be unable to hold it, but
a demilitarized zone was recommended in order to pro-
vide access to the sea through Trebizond.
These proposals were transmitted to San Remo by
the London Conference of Ambassadors. They were sup-
ported by Curzon, by the French, and, naturally, by
the Armenians. Lloyd George and Nitti attacked them,
130
- 2 -
however, on the following grounds.
1. Very few Armenians are left in this territory,
which is now predominantly Turkish.
2. The Turks will not give it up without fierce
fighting.
3. The Armenians are not strong enough to take it
by force.
4. As France and England are already preoccupied in
Syria, Palestine and Mesopotamia, the Allies are in no
position to aid the Armenians.
5. Who else can furnish this aid?
In the circumstances, it was agreed not to indicate
in the Turkish Treaty the frontier with Armenia, and to
invite Mr. Wilson to settle the question. According to
my informant, there will be an outcry among the Armenians
and their friends in America when the Treaty is handed to
the Turks and it transpires that San Remo has evaded the
Armenian problem. In this respect, the Conference will
be judged a fiasco. I replied that in view of the hope-
lessness of the Armenians a couple of day ago, they were
well out of the difficulty for the moment, and that my
informant perhaps took too dark a view of the case.
Curzon will lay three documents before the Conference
this afternoon: (1) A despatch to the League of Nations
in reply to a communication from the latter declining the
131
- 3 -
Armenian mandate; (2) A replay to the American Note on
the proposed Treaty with Turkey; (3) A request to Wash-
ington in the matter of Armenia. This will be in three
sections: first, an appeal to America to assume the
mandate; second, an invitation to the President to draw
the Western frontier; third, a statement as to American
assistance needed, both military and financial.
Two maps of Armenia and a copy of the London sub-
commission’s report are being forwarded by pouch.
132
Appendix I
Number 9
(Extract Paraphrased)
San Remo
27 April 1920
Johnson to Colby:
File № 763.72119/9747
At the Monday afternoon meeting of the Supreme Coun-
cil a reply to the Washington despatch on the proposed
Turkish Treaty was approved as follows. It was agreed
that this reply should be signed by Nitti and transmit-
ted by myself.
”While the Governments of the Allied Powers attach
importance to the frankness of the views expressed by
the Government of the United States, they have perforce
postponed their answer to Mr. Colby’s Note until the
clauses of the proposed Treaty with Turkey should have
reached the point where they could be laid before the
San Remo Conference.
”The Supreme Council takes note of the fact that
Washington does not intend to be represented at the Con-
ference otherwise than by an observer. Whence it appears
that America does not propose to be party to the Turkish
Treaty.
”The Council is happy to be assured by the presence
of Mr. Johnson, however, that his Government relaxes none
133
- 2 -
of its interest in the conditions of peace to be of-
fered Turkey, and take pleasure in hereby extending
further information as to details passed upon before
the arrival of the American Ambassador at Rome. The
wish of his Government to be kept informed is not in-
terpreted as signifying that the conclusion of the
Treaty should be postponed for an exhaustive discus-
sion of each point in the American Note and for a fin-
al agreement between the parties concerned. In the
circumstances, such а course would have precluded the
possibility of conducting negotiations to any profit-
able end.
”The Governments of the Allied Powers have made
no secret of their desire that America should take
part in drawing up and signing the instrument which is
to reconstitute Turkey on just and permanent founda-
tions. This desire caused them to postpone the Turkish
negotiations, not without risk of a renewal of the war.
They entirely comprehend the reasons, which have pre-
vented the United States from becoming signatory to the
Treaty. The task of negotiating it has not been sim-
plified, however, by this postponement, and in the cir-
cumstances it has fallen to the Allied Governments alone.
They have not evaded this burdensome duty, and have at-
tempted to discharge it as best they could. They are
134
- 3 -
assured that the terms which they are soon to offer
the Constantinople Government will not be found in-
harmonious with the spirit shared by the United States
and themselves in carrying on the war and in drawing
up the other treaties of peace.
”The Allied Governments are at one with United
States in its desire that the present Treaty be just
and impartial to all the parties concerned. It can not
be justice, however, to grant the same consideration to
the Turks, who made common cause with the Germans and
the Austro-Hungarians in their attack upon the peace
of Europe, as to their former subjects who have been
freed from Turkish tyranny at immense cost to the Al-
lies of treasure and blood.
”The Supreme Council will now consider the par-
ticular points mentioned in the Note of the American
Government...
“7” The Supreme Council fully participates in
the concern expressed by America with regard to Armenian
independence. The Allies have every wish to grant
Armenia such territory as she may within reason desire
for the necessities of the present and of the future.
No question of the entire treaty has been more baffling
of solution, and the Supreme Council has been faced by
the most discouraging difficulties. Another Note will
present the problem in full to the American Government.*
* See Johnson to Colby; San Remo, April 27; File № 763.72119/9749. Appendix I, No. 10.
135
Appendix I
Number 10
(Paraphrase)
San Remo
27 April 1920
Johnson to Colby:
File № 763.72119/9749
See my cables of 25 and 26 April.
At its Monday afternoon meeting the Supreme Council
accepted Curzon's proposed note to the President with
reference to Armenia. Agreed that Nitti should sign the
Note and I forward it. Text follows:
”Merely cursory reference to the Armenian question
is made in today’s despatch to the American Government,
replying to the communication of March 26th from the
Secretary of State, with the additional statement that
this subject will be dealt with separately. The Supreme
Council now wishes, accordingly, to lay the following
consideration before the Government of the United States.
”An inquiry was addressed, early in the course of
the negotiations in London and Paris with regard to the
terms of peace with Turkey, to the Council of the League
of Nations, as to the degree in which that body, inter-
ested as it was known to be in Armenia's destiny, might
be disposed to assist in assuring to the future state
136
- 2 -
her safety and independence.
”In the circumstances, since the League of Nations
is not itself a state and lacks the forces or the
resources to assume a mandate, the Supreme Council had
no intention of requesting the League to undertake the
responsibilities of a mandatory. In replying, however,
the Council of that body stated that although the League
sympathized fully with the aim, which the Principal Al-
lied Powers had in view, that aim would be most succes-
sfully attained through the cooperation, as mandatory,
of a member of the League or of some outside Power.
”While examining this answer, the Supreme Council
was immediately put in mind of a belief which it has
long held that the United States is the sole Great Power
qualified both by her sympathies and by her resources
to assume on behalf of humanity the duty of a mandate.
The Note of the American Secretary of State truly des-
cribes this duty as ”the demand and expectation of the
civilized world”. The Supreme Council has at no time
forgotten that nowhere than in the speeches of Mr.
Wilson has the aim of a free Armenia, among the various
aims for which the Allies and America carried on the
war to a successful conclusion, been more eloquently
presented.
137
- 3 -
"The Supreme Council therefore takes this occasion
to invite the United States to assume a mandate for Ar-
menia. In so doing, the Supreme Council has no wish what-
ever to escape its natural responsibilities. It does so
because the resources of the Allies will be strained to
the last degree by obligations already incurred in reor-
ganizing the Turkish Empire as it existed in 1914, as well
as because the Supreme Council believes that a Power un-
trammelled by the alliances and preoccupations of Europe
will command greater confidence and offer stronger guar-
antees of stability than a cis-Atlantic government.
"Questions as to the extent of the responsibility
which Washington is requested to undertake, involving as
it does the area and confines of the new Armenia, may
well be asked in America. It lies in the power of the
American Government to answer those questions in its
own terms.
"No point of the negotiations which have been taking
place has been more seriously discussed or has been found
thornier than that of the frontiers of Armenia. The plea
for a larger Armenia has been consistently upheld by
President Wilson; but circumstances with which he is ac-
quainted made it necessary to curtail these hopes in part,
while the idea of a state stretching to the Mediterranean
138
- 4 -
and including Cilicia has long been given up.
"It remained to decide what parts of the provinces
of Van, Bitlis, Erzerum and Trebizond, which the Turks
still hold, might be added without danger or impropriety
to Russian Armenia, and in what way the new State might
be rendered self-sufficient by means of access to the
sea. In short, the precise western and southern fron-
tiers of Armenia to be indicated in the Turkish Treaty
had yet to be drawn. It is hoped that the frontiers with
Azerbaijan and Georgia will be delimited by common ac-
cord, and at all events, there is no necessity of consider-
ing them now.
"Neither is it necessary to refer to the arguments
presented, bearing on both sides of the question at issue.
It is enough to say that the Supreme Council agreed upon
an appeal to a disinterested and entirely impartial ar-
biter as being the best of the possible solutions. The
Supreme Council therefore decided to add a request in this
sense to its invitation to the President. The Supreme
Council hopes that, however the American Government may
reply in the wider matter of the Mandate, the President
will undertake this honorable duty not only for the sake
of the country chiefly concerned but for that of the peace
of the Near East. The Supreme Council has accordingly
decided:
"(a) To communicate to President Wilson a request
139
- 5 -
that the United States assume, within the limits stated
in Section 5* of the first printed draft of the Turkish
Treaty, a mandate over Armenia;
"(b) To invite the President, whatever be the
reply of the American Government with regard to the
mandate, to arbitrate the frontiers of Armenia as des-
cribed in the draft article;
"(c) To insert in the Treaty an article on Armenia
in sense as follows: The high contracting parties consent
to refer the question of the frontier between Turkey and
Armenia, in the provinces of Van, Bitlis, Erzerum and
Trebizond, to the President of the United States and to
abide by his arbitration, as by any condition he may lay
down providing for Armenia’s access to the sea. Until
the President’s decision has been handed down, the boun-
daries of Armenia and Turkey will remain as they are now.
As for the northern and eastern frontiers of Armenia, in
case the three Caucasian Republics fail to reach an
agreement on this subject, the Supreme Council will de-
limit the disputed boundaries at the time when the Armeno-
Turkish boundary is given out.
"Aside from these questions, there are other phases
of the situation which the Supreme Council feels it im-
portant to bring to the sympathetic notice of the Govern-
* Apparently Section VI of the first
draft of the Turkish Treaty.
140
- 6 -
ment at Washington. After the reestablishment of peace
with Turkey, there must unavoidably supervene, in whose
hands soever the guidance of Armenian affairs may lie,
a period of transition during which, unless the new
state be able to count on help from outside, its safety
and even its existence will hang in the balance. Armenia
will find herself in instant need of two things: military
forces adequate to ward off aggression from without, and
financial resources sufficient for the internal organiza-
tion of the country and for the development of its econ-
omic possibilities. These needs may both, in the last
resort, be regarded as of a financial order.
"The Supreme Council is of the opinion that the
military problem is less formidable than might at first
be thought. The forces of the existing Armenian Govern-
ment have until the present time been chiefly engaged in
unfortunate clashes with those of Georgia and Azerbaijan.
An agreement has recently been made between the three
republics, however, and it is hoped that with the settle-
ment of these disputes Armenia will be able to concentrate
her forces on her new frontiers. The Allies have thor-
oughly considered the possibility of enforcing the ter-
ritorial clauses of the Turkish Treaty in this quarter by
means of their own military aid. While ammunition and
arms are already being supplied, neither the Armenians
nor their friends in other countries should delude them-
141
- 7 -
selves with the hope that Allied troops can be spared
for this purpose. Not only have the Principal Allied
Powers already assumed very heavy responsibilities in
Europe and elsewhere, but the necessity of occupying
and administering regions which formerly belonged
to the Ottoman Empire and the possibility that they may be
compelled to enforce the Treaty in parts of Turkey it-
self, will make it impossible for them to undertake fur-
ther military burdens. Armenia will therefore be com-
pelled to rely on her own resources, eked out by Al-
lied supplies and instructors, unless she succeeds in
obtaining immediate aid from some outside Power. Volun-
teers from America or from some other country would un-
doubtedly be gratefully received and employed to the
greatest advantage. But still more advantageous, enable-
ing Armenia to apply her man power in the most effective
manner to her own defense, would be an offer, by a great
civilized state, on an organized scale, of material as-
sistance and technical specialists. The Supreme Council
considers it of great importance to learn whether the
Government or the people of the United States find in them-
selves any willingness to be of service in this degree
to Armenia.
"Still more urgent, however, is the matter of credits.
We understand that the Council of the League of Nations
142
- 8 -
has under consideration a proposal to the Assembly of that
body to recommend an Armenian loan, underwritten by all
the countries belonging to the League. What response might
be made to such an appeal, if issued, the Supreme Council
naturally has no means of knowing. But even if the res-
ponse were favorable, it could not be acted upon without
a further lapse of time. The loan might not, furthermore,
be sufficient to meet the necessities of Armenia; and,
for obvious reasons, the American Government could not in
any case be included in an appeal to members of the League
of Nations. Thus in the very country where the consequen-
ces of the war are believed to be less burdensome than
among any of the recent belligerents, where the drain upon
the resources of a powerful and wealthy people has been
least serious, and where sympathy for Armenia is most ac-
tive and sincere, help might fall to be forthcoming.
"It is not for the Supreme Council to point out to
America how the Armenian cause could best be furthered –
whether by act of Government or by public or private con-
tributions. A loan of a few millions sterling by the
United States might suffice to put Armenia upon her feet
at once. It is believed, on the other hand, that there
are in America numerous private bodies, which would willing-
ly subscribe to a cause so deserving. The Armenians them-
selves, moreover, would hardly hesitate at such a crisis
in the affairs of their country to put their hands in
143
- 9 -
their pockets. They would not expect or desire to be
wholly dependent upon the alms or the impulse of foreigners.
We are convinced that well-to-do Armenians will donate gen-
erously toward that rehabilitation of their homeland, which
they have awaited with such patience, with suffering sо
protracted and so cruel. Indeed few worthier appeals have
been addressed to the conscience and to the heart of human-
ity, and mankind might well vie in responding to it.
"The Supreme Council has no wish to press the American
Government in the matter of reaching decisions so momentous.
But it goes without saying that Armenia will be in extreme
anxiety, and the return of peace to the Near East may he
unhappily or even disastrously retarded, while these ques-
tions remain in suspense. The various countries concerned
would therefore be greatly relieved if the United States
found it possible to express as soon as may be convenient
its views on any or all of the above questions. And in
conclusion we venture to voice our very sincere hope that
the response may be of a favourable nature."
(Signed) Nitti.
144
Appendix I
Number 11
(Paraphrase)
Washington
17 May 1920
Colby to Wallace:
№ 949
See Johnson’s cable of 25 April from San Remo,
regarding Armenia (763.72119/9749).
Having studied the question of the invitation
tendered by the Principal Allied Powers that he con-
sent to delimit the southern and western frontiers
of Armenia, the President wishes his acceptance to
be convoyed to those Powers. He is happy to be able
to serve the Armenians in this manner. You are re-
quested to transmit this reply to the members of
the Supreme Council.
145
Appendix III
MAPS USED IN DETERMINING ACTUAL BOUNDARIES
OF THE FOUR VILAYETS
AND
IN DRAWING THE FRONTIERS OF ARMENIA
In attempting to define the exact boundaries of "the
Villayets of Erzerum, Trebizond, Van, and Bitlis" mentioned
in Article 89 of the Turkish Treaty, we found marked dis-
crepancies even in the most recent mарs. Unless there is
a definite understanding as to what outer boundaries of
these four Vilayets were intended, the frontier established
by President Wilson might be so drawn as to depart from the
clear intention of the Principal Allied Powers in drafting
the treaty.
It is obvious for example that the Vilayet of Erzerum
referred to in Article 89 is not coextensive with the Vilayet
of Erzerum as it existed before the Treaties of San Stefanо
and Berlin in 1878 (Specialkarte von Armenien, von A. Peter-
mann, 1:1,200,000, published in Petermann's Mittheilungen,
volume 24, 1878, Table 16), when it included the sandjaks
of Kars, Tschaldyr, and Lazistan, the port of Batum lying
within the latter. Nor can the Vilayet of Erzerum be re-
garded as including the Kharput district as it did in the
early nineteenth century. This extent of Erzerum the
Armenian leaders have referred to in a recent petition,
as giving them a possible claim to Kharput.
146
- 2 -
The Vilayet of Trebizond referred to in Article 89
of the Turkish Treaty of 1920 does not include the sand-
jak of Djanik and the seaport of Samsun, although it is
so shown in several fairly-recent Turkish, French, British,
and Russian maps (a) Empire Ottoman, Division Adminis-
trative, 1:1,500,000, dressé d’après le Salnamé de
1899/1317, рar R. Huber; (b) Carte de la Turquie d'Asie,
Feuille No. 3, 1:1,000,000; (c) British International
Map, Sinob and Batum sheets, 1:1,000,000, editions of
1916, 1918; (d) Russian 10-verst map of Asiatic Turkey,
(sheets printed 1907 to 1914). Janik, or Djanik, was a
sandjak of the Vilayet of Trebizond until 1910, but was
formed into a separate administrative entity in that year
called an "independent sandjak" and so appears in the
statistics published by the Turkish Government in 1912.
The best general maps of the four eastern vilayets
of Turkish Armenia are as follows:
Turkish 1:1,000,000 (Arabic characters) 4 sheets 1919 Russian 1: 850,000 (20-verst) 3 " 1903 British 1:1,000,000 4 " 1916-18 French 1:1,000,000 (Turquie d’Asie) 2 " German 1: 800,000 (Operationskarte) 6 " 1915-18
The best large-scale maps are:
Turkish 1:200,000 (General Staff)* 29 " 1911-18 Russian 1:210,000 (5-verst) 22 " 1886-1916 British 1:250,000 (Eastern Turkey in
Asia) 17 " 1901-02
German 1:400,000 (Kiepert’s Klein-asien) 9 " 1902-06
* See sheets with names transliterated by British War Office.
147
- 3 -
Only the Turkish large-scale map shows boundaries of
both vilayets and sandjaks. The British and French 1:1,000,
000-scale maps and the Russian five-verst map give vilayet
boundaries. All four differ from each other in certain de-
tails, but agree in a general way with the official Turkish
maps showing administrative divisions, except upon the
sandjak of Djanik in relation to the vilayet of Trebizond.
Djanik is shown as a separate unit on Turkish maps issued
in 1919 and on the Turkish 1:200,000-scale sheets, pub-
lished between 1915 and 1918.
All of these maps differ from each other in complete-
ness of political boundaries and in the positions of vil-
ayets and sandjaks boundaries in relation to mountains,
rivers, and cities. We have adopted the Turkish 1:200,000-scale
map as official in determining what the existing
vilayet boundaries are, having confidence in its super-
iority over the others. This confidence in its accuracy,
gained by me through use of all the maps in the field,
when travelling with the Harbord Mission, has been
strengthened by our present study in preparation of this
report.
We have reduced the vilayet boundaries on the Turkish
l:200,000-scale map to the scale of 1:1,000,000 and trans-
ferred them to our map herewith, using a newly-compiled
base. It was impossible to use the British War Office
148
- 4 -
map (G.S.G.S. 2944, London, Feb. 1920) as a base, because
reduction of the vilayet boundaries from the Turkish
1:200,000-scale sheets to our new base on the scale of
1:1,000,000 shows that the vilayet boundaries on this
British and the French l:l,000,000-scale maps are four
miles to twenty-two miles out of position in extreme
cases. These maps almost nowhere agree exactly with
the Turkish maps in position of administrative boun-
daries and of mountain crests and river courses. Upon
our new base we present a generalization of our recom-
mended southern and western boundary of Turkish Armenia
within the vilayets of Erzerum, Trebizond, Van, and
Bitlis. The map contains all the geographical names
and all altitudes of peaks used in the boundary decis-
ion.
We have recommended that the Boundary Commission,
provided in Article 91 of the Treaty of Sèvres, use the
sheets of the Turkish l:200,000-scale map (Seifke Pasha
survey) in tracing on the spot the frontier between
Armenia, Turkey, and Kurdistan. For the convenience of
the Boundary Commission we have attached to the boundary
decision a series of l:200,000-scale maps, showing in
red, the frontier we recommend, from the Persian border
south of Mt. Ararat to the Black Sea west of Trebizond.
-- Major Lawrence Martin,
General Staff Corps, U. S. Army;
Geographer to the Harbord
Mission.
149
Appendix IV
THE QUESTION OF KHARPUT
I
Origin and Statement of the Question
As originally presented at the Peace Conference,
the claims of the Armenians of Turkey comprised, rough-
ly, the so-called six Armenian Vilayets, namely Erzerum,
Van, Вitlis, Diarbekir, Kharput and Sivas, with the
Vilayets of Trebizond in the north and Adana (Cilicia)
in the south. When the terms of peace with Turkey be-
gan seriously to be considered, however, and it became
evident that this Armenia was not destined to emerge
from the ruins of the Ottoman Empire, the Armenians and
their partisans in the United States exerted themselves
to save what they could of Greater Armenia. Especially
since the San Remo Conference, and since the President’s
acceptance of the responsibility of delimiting the Turco-
Armenian frontier, has a systematic pressure been brought
to bear upon the White House and the State Department,
in an attempt to induce the President to extend his ac-
tion beyond the limits set in the San Remo invitation
and in the Treaty of Sèvres. This pressure has been
exerted chiefly by representatives and partisans of
150
- 2 -
Turkish Armenia, and has tended in the main toward influenc-
ing the President to include within the boundaries of the
Armenian State, if not the entire Vilayets of Mamuret-ul-
Aziz (Kharput) and Diarbekir, at least the Sandjaks of
Dersim and Kharput, together with a portion of the Sandjak
of Arghana.
The more important of the documents bearing on this
situation are the following:
I. A memorandum of January 15, 1920 (File No. 860J.-
01/178), to the Secretary of State from Dr. Garo Pasder-
madjian, Diplomatic Representative in Washington of the
Armenian Republic, indicating among Armenian desiderata
the Sandjaks of Dersim and Kharput.
II. A memorandum of May 1, 1920 (860J.01/247), to
the same from the same, requesting the Vilayet of Kharput.
III. A telegram of May 4, 1920 (860J.01/251), to
the Secretary of State from Boghos Nubar Pasha, President
of the Armenian National Delegation in Paris, represent-
ing the Armenians of the former Ottoman Empire, and from
Mr. Avetis Aharonian, President of the Delegation of the
Armenian Republic to the Peace Conference, claiming the
Sandjak of Kharput.
IV. A despatch of August 20, 1920 (860J.01/336), to
the Secretary of State from the American Embassy in Paris,
151
- 3 -
transmitting a letter to the President from Boghos Nubar
Pasha and Mr. Avetis Aharonian on the boundary question,
together with two memoranda and a number of accompany-
ing documents. The leaders of the Armenian delegations
in Paris petition the President to include the Kharput
area in Armenia, a suggesting that the western and south-
ern boundaries "be drawn to correspond with the bounda-
ries of the former province of Erzerum." Reversion to
the boundaries of the Vilayet of Erzerum, as it existed
in the first half of the 19th century, would permit the
inclusion in Armenia of the city and plain of Kharput,
as well as the entire valley of the Chorokh River to its
mouth near Batum. In fact, it is suggested that the
Armenians would be willing to renounce certain portions
of the four Vilayets, and notably the western part of the
vilayet of Trebizond, in exchange for the above-mentioned
districts.
V. A memorandum by Major-General J. Bagratuni, Chief
of the Armenian Military Mission to the United States (760J.
6175/15) submitted May 22, 1920, to the Secretary of State
by the Appointed Armenian Minister, recommending the inclu-
sion of the Sandjaks of Dersim and Kharput and that part
of the Sandjak of Arghana traversed by the valley of the
Upper Euphrates (Murad Su).
152
- 4 -
VI. A memorandum of May 5, 1920 (860J.01/266), tо the
Secretary of State from the Honorable James W. Gerard,
Chairman of the American Committee for the Independence
of Armenia, claiming for Armenia "all territories east of
the Euphrates River."
VII. A memorial to the President and to the Secretary
of State (860J.01/311), presented July 21, 1920, bу a del-
egation representing the United Educational and Benevolent
Societies of Harput, Armenia, calling upon the President
to include the Province of Kharput, "as well as all the
other Armenian provinces", within the frontiers of the new
state.
VIII. "Observations Regarding the Boundaries of Ar-
menia" (860J.0l/313), by Reverend Ernest W. Riggs, Presi-
dent of Euphrates College, Kharput (under the American
Board of Commissioners for Foreign Missions) and Temporary
Secretary and Treasurer of the Armenia America Society,
New York, submitted July 24, 1920, to the President and
to the Secretary of State. Mr. Riggs suggests that the
President recommend to the signatories of the Treaty of
Sèvres the attribution to Armenia of Kharput, as well as
of various localities in the Vilayets of Sivas, Diar-
bekir and Adana.
IX. A letter of August 28, 1920 (760J.6715/16) to the
President from representatives of the Armenians of the
city and Province of Diarbekir, who in a mass meeting
153
- 5 -
held at West Hoboken, New Jersey, on August 22, resolved to
appeal to President Wilson "to include their city and prov-
ince within the boundaries of the New Armenian Republic."
In addition to the documents listed above, a large
number of letters and telegrams has been addressed, both
to the President and to the Secretary of State, by indi-
viduals, organizations and mass meetings, calling for the
inclusion of Kharput within the frontier to be delimited
by the President.
It may be added, finally, that an unofficial intima-
tion has been conveyed to the Committee drawing up this
report, by representatives in America of the Armenian
Republic, to the effect that what their Government chiefly
wishes to secure is the Plain of Kharput, lying in the loop
which the Euphrates here makes to the west, together with
a suitable corridor via the valley of the Murad Su into
the Vilayet of Bitlis.
II
Arguments in Favor of Including Kharput within the
Boundaries of Armenia.
The data adduced by the above documents in support of
their main contention, namely that the whole or a part of
the Vilayet of Kharput should be included within the Presi-
dent's terms of reference, may be summarized as follows:
154
- 6 -
1. Historical Data.
Kharput is historically a part of Armenia Major and
was long included in the Turkish Eyalet of Erzerum or
Ermenistan (Document IV: Memo. to the President, pp. 2,
3, 4).
Kharput is one of the six so-called Armenian Vilay-
ets of the former Ottoman Empire, so recognized in at
least four international instruments signed since 1878
(VI, p. 3; VII, p. 1).
Diarbekir is historically Armenian, the seat of
Tigranes the Great (IX, p. 1).
2. Cultural Data.
Kharput has long been an important Armenian cultural
centre. There are in the province 2 Armenian colleges and
27 Armenian high schools, besides 2 French schools, one
German school, and the American Euphrates College (whose
original name of Armenia College was suppressed by the
Turks). The students of these foreign institutions "are
exclusively Armenians," as well as the doctors and lawyers
of the province-which has supplied 75% of all the teach-
ers and clergy of "Armenia". "Of the 360 villages and
towns of the Province of Kharput not a single one is
without a church, а monastery, or a cemetery whose ins-
criptions and crosses attest to its Armenian origin"
(VII, pp. 1,2).
155
- 7 -
3. Ethnological Date.
Kharput has always been recognized as a predominantly
Armenian province.
It is an Armenian-speaking district. 40% or 40-45,000
of the Armenians in this country come from Kharput. There
is now, within the boundaries of the Armenian Republic and
in the territory east of the Euphrates in Turkish Armenia,
as Armenian population of about 1,700,000, as against a
maximum of 750,000 Moslems of various races (VI, pp. 3, 4).
In 1914, according to Dr. Pasdermadjian, the Province
had a population of 168,000 Armenians, as against 102,000
Turks and 95,000 Kurds (II). These are the figures given
by Documents IV and VII, taken from "La Question Arménienne"
by Marcel Léart, 1913, and from the Orange Book of the
Russian Foreign Office, 1915. But the Sandjak of Malatia
is not included, while the total is increased by 5000
Syrian Christians and 80,000 non-Moslem Kizilbashis.
It is claimed that in the Vilayet of Diarbekir the
Armenians also predominate. The statistics of the Armenian
Patriarchate at Constantinople for 1912 are as follows
(IX, p. l):
Moslems
Turks ................ 45,000
Sedentary Kurds ...... 30,000
Nomadic Kurds......... 25,000
Total.................. 100,000
156
- 8 -
Christians
Armenians.........105,000
Miscellaneous......60,000
Total........................165,000
Miscellaneous non-Christians.......31,000
Grand total..................296,000
4. Economic data
Kharput, economically, is the richest region of Armenia.
The Sandjak of Kharput is an exceptionally rich agricultural
region (IV, Notes for Peace Conference, No.3, p. 1). The
mineral wealth of Armenia is available only along the edge
of the central plateau, where the immense lava crust has
been broken by seismic disturbances (IV, Memo. to the Pres-
ident, p. 5).
"Kharput is rich in minerals, and therefore, desired
by Europe (II).
"Armenia would be insufficient in the ... economic
sense, if the Districts of Erzerum, Trebizond and Kharput
were to be excluded from it." "We believe the reason for
the objection raised by the European Powers to the inclu-
sion of ... Kharput in Armenia is that ... the rich silver
mine of Keban-Maden is situated in the District of Kharput"
(VI, p. 3).
"The entire commerce, agriculture and industry of
Kharput were in the hands of the Armenians. The bankers ...
157
- 9 -
and artisans were exclusively Armenians. The most intel-
ligent, industrious and capable element of the population
was the Armenian... Without the rich and fertile prov-
inces of Kharput, Sivas, Diarbekir and Cilicia, which
abound in a coal, iron, silver, and other minerals, Armenia
would be a barren mountainous country, deprived of the
necessary means to become a strong self-sustaining country"
(VII, pp. 1, 2).
"Industrially the Armenians are even more the predomi-
nant element in the city of Diarbekir... The Armenian
Republic economically needs the Province of Diarbekir. It
should not be deprived of the rich copper mines of Argheny
(Arghana), nor of the fertile soil and great water power
along the Tigris River" (IX, p.2).
5. Geographic Data.
Kharput is geographically a part of the central plateau
of Armenia (IV, Notes to Peace Conference, No. 3, p. 1;
Memo. to President, pp. 4, 5, 6; Geographic Appendix by Z.
Khanzadian).
6. Strategic Data.
Perhaps the most convincing of the arguments presented
in the documents cited is set forth by Major-General
Bagratuni. First stating that Erzerum is the central and
most essential point of the Armenian plateau, the nodus of
its trade routes and the strategic key of eastern Asia Minor,
158
- 10 -
he goes on to say that "the Sandjak of Kharput is the
gateway to ... the Armenian Plateau. The ... natural
barrier of Armenia, - the line of defence of the Armenian
Taurus Mountains - is intercepted by the Murad River,
which cuts through that barrier in the vicinity of
Kharput and opens the way to the Armenian Plateau.
Kharput has always been the point from which have start-
ed all attempts of invasion from the west... In order
to assure the defence of the Armenian plateau, it is
essential to include in Armenia those mountain chains,
which encompass Armenia in the neighborhood of Kharput
between Chimish-Gezek (Dersim), Kharput, and Palu
(Arghana). Otherwise, the southwestern frontier
of Armenia will be exposed to the Turkish menace" (V;
also IV; Notes to Peace Conference, No. 1).
159
- 11 -
III
Arguments Against Including Kharput within the
Boundaries of Armenia.
It will be readily admitted that the Armenian con-
tention, considered in the abstract, is in the main well
grounded. Insofar as the question may be regarded as
still open to discussion, however, candor requires it
to he pointed out that the more cogent of the foregoing
arguments are by nо means unanswerable.
A. If Kharput is an important cultural centre
for Armenians, it is no less so for the Turks and other
Moslems. The Medressehs of Kharput, or Mohammedan
schools of theology and law, rank second only to those
of Constantinople. According to the French authority
Cuinet, there were 45 of these institutions in the
Vilayet in 1891, 28 of them being in the Sandjak,
with 22 primary schools.
B. The pre-war population of Kharput was, accord-
ing to all available figures, predominantly Moslem.
According to Consul L. A. Davis, whose long report
of February 9, 1918, is on file in the State Department
(867.4016/392), the total population of the vilayet in
1914 was about 500,000, of whom some 150,000 were
Armenians. Mr. Davis does not give the source of his
160
- 12 -
information, nor doеs he furnish figures per Sandjak.
He states however that "the city of Kharput was largely
Mohammedan, but in Mamuret-ul-Aziz (Mezreh) and the
country around it, nearly half the inhabitants were
Armenians". This estimate, presumably, would apply to
the Sandjak or to the Kaza of Kharput.
The population estimates for the Sandjaks of
Kharput and Dersim, as compiled by the two authorities
most relied upon by this committee, are tabulated
below in comparison with the estimate of the Armenian
Delegation at Paris. The latter, as previously stated,
is based upon the Orange Book of the Russian Foreign
Office, 1915, and Marcel Léart's "La Question Arménienne,"
1913.
Armenian Delegation
Sandjaks
Turks Kurds Kizilbashis Misc.
Christians
Armen-
ians
Kharput
Dersim 102,000 95,000 80,000 5,000 168,000
Cuinet (1891)
Sandjaks Greeks
Kharput
Dersim
139,956
15,460
20,950
12,000
88,800
27,700 650
45,348
8,170
Totals: 155,416 32,950 116,500 650 53,518
161
- 13 -
David Magie
(American Peace Delegation)
Sandjaks
Turks Kurds
Kizilbashis
Misc.
Christians
Armen-
ians
Kharput
Dersim
130,000
10,000
c.100,000
c. 50,000
1,500
500
80,000
27,000
Totals 140,000 150,000 2,000 107,000
According to all three of these authorities, the Armenians
were before the war in a minority in the Sandjaks of Kharput
and Dersim as compared with the combined Moslems. According
to Cuinet this is also the case in the Kaza of Kharput,
which very nearly coincides with the minimum desired by
the Armenian military advisers. Cuinet's figures for this
Kaza are as follows:
Turks................................ 57,000
Kurds................................ 8,000
Kizilbashis.......................... 18,000
Armenians............................ 25,340
Greeks............................... 650
But to connect this Kaza with the vilayet of Bitlis it
would be necessary to detach a portion at least of the Sand-
jak of Arghana, in the vilayet of Diarbekir. Magie's fig-
ures for this Sandjak, used by the American Peace Delegation
at Paris, are as follows:
162
- 14 -
Turks
Kurds
Arabs
110,000
Armenians 34,000
Syrian Christians 6,000
Here again, however, the Armenians were largely outnum-
bered before the war, and now are in a hopeless minority.
From a strictly ethnological point of view, it would therefore
appear inadvisable to add to Armenia a frontier region con-
taining so great a majority of Turks and Kurds.To include
both Sandjaks would accentuate the numerical inferiority of
the Armenian. To include the plain of Kharput alone, with
its eastward corridor, would cut off the important Kurdish
district of Dersim from the rest of Kurdistan, creating dis-
content and unrest on the borders of this Armenian enclave.
C. While it may be conceded that before the war the
greater part of the commerce and agriculture of Kharput was
in the hands of the Armenians, the same cannot be claimed
today. But even if it were, the fact remains that the
economic outlet of Kharput does not follow the course of
the upper Euphrates or of the Kara Su into the vilayets of
Bitlis and Erzerum. The main line of communication between
Kharput and the sea is by way of Sivas and Amasia to Samsun,
which will be Turkish territory according to the Treaty of
163
- 15 -
Sèvres. Other channels strike southward to Diarbekir and
Mesopotamia or to Marash and Cilicia. But the character of
the country and the altitude of the Armenian plateau, mak-
ing the roads to the north and to the east at all times dif-
ficult and in winter wellnigh impassable, have discouraged
the flow of traffic in that direction. This fact is recog-
nized in two of the documents cited in the first section of
this Appendix: tacitly in No. VI (page 2, paragraph 3) and
explicitly in No. VIII (page 2, paragraph 1). If Kharput
were added to Armenia, accordingly, the province would be
obliged to change all its habits of trade. And the onus
of this experiment in running counter to geographical and
racial lines of least resistance would fall upon the Turkish
and Kurdish majority, who would not thereby be rendered
more contented with their new status.
D. The strategic argument put forth by Major-General
Bagratuni (V) in favor of attributing Kharput to Armenia
is in certain respects sound. Kharput is, geographically,
the westward buttress of the Armenian plateau, and it is
the most advantageous point at which armies may be massed
for an advance either upon Erzerum or upon the region of
Lake Van. The argument appears to be based, however, upon
considerations, which are not strictly concerned with the
defence of Armenia. The first is the possession of the
rich plain of Kharput, with its uncontested Armenian
traditions. The second may well be a natural desire to
164
- 16 -
establish a bridge between Armenia proper and Armenia
irredenta beyond the Euphrates. The possibility of mak-
ing an arrangement with the French whereby those portions
of the Armenian provinces of Turkey under their control
may in some way be saved for Armenia has more than once
been mentioned, and is alluded to in No. VI of the doc-
uments cited above (page 2, paragraph. 2 and 3)*.
In case the Armenians actually decide to renounce
Tireboli and Trebizond out of consideration for the
Pontic Greeks, the strategic advantages of holding Dersim
will largely disappear, while there would be distinct dis-
advantages in holding Kharput alone. But although Kharput
may be geographically a part of the Armenian plateau,
and is the point whence diverge the main land routes
into Armenia, it is an outlying spur of that plateau, and
those routes traverse defiles and passes farther to the
East, the loftiest of which will lie within the confines
of Armenia proper. In view of the unfavorable ethno-
logical situation of the new state, however, not to speak
of other difficulties by which the Armenians will be
faced, it may be argued with equal if not greater force
that the strategic position of Armenia will be stronger
if she has shorter interior lines to defend, with room
behind them in which to deploy her forces. Moreover it
must be kept in mind that if the projected Armenia
* The Tripartite Convention of August 10, 1920, between Great Britain, France and Italy, includes Kharput in the French Area of Special Interest.
165
- 17 -
exists at all, it will be primarily because the Turks
have submitted to the Treaty of Sèvres. And in that
case the threat of invasion from the west will be great-
ly diminished. For not only will the Turkish army be
reduced to a maximum of 50,000 men (Articles 152 and
155 of the Treaty), but the distribution of those forces
will be strictly supervised by the Allied Commission of
Control (Articles 156, 157 and 200), while the security
of Armenia will be further safeguarded by the establish-
ment of demilitarized zones.
E. If there were no other argument against the
inclusion of Kharput within the boundaries of Armenia,
there remains one which in the opinion of the Committee
making this report is conclusive. This is that Presi-
dent Wilson has accepted, without reservations, the
invitation extended by the Supreme Council of the Prin-
cipal Allied Powers to arbitrate "the question of the
frontier to be fixed between Turkey and Armenia, in
the Vilayets of Erzerum, Trebizond, Van and Bitlis."
No part of the Vilayets of Mamuret-ul-Aziz, in which
Kharput lies, or of Diarbekir, is included in the com-
mitment of arbitration. The Draft Treaty stipulating
these conditions had already been handed to the Turks
when on May 17th the President’s acceptance was tel-
egraphed, without further conditions, to Paris. On
166
- 18 -
August 10th the Treaty was finally signed at Sèvres,
no change having been made in the clauses relating to
Armenia. According to a telegram of August 18th from
the Embassy in Paris (No. 1572), the Armenians did not
officially enter objections to any of the terms of this
Treaty. While the Treaty was being drafted, however,
they had endeavored to secure the insertion of other
terms respecting indemnities, Cilicia, and Kharput.
IV
Conclusion
Turkey, Armenia, and the Principal Allied Powers
have put their formal signature to the terms within
which it is understood the President is to act, and the
President has agreed unconditionally to act within those
terms. It is therefore the sense of the Committee making
this report that the President, however sympathetically
he may regard the Armenian claims to Kharput, is not
now free to extend his action beyond the limits of the
four vilayets of Van, Bitlis, Erzerum and Trebizond. Nor,
in these circumstances, is it necessary for the President
to make special provision with respect to an economic
outlet on the Mediterranean, since the Black Sea is the
natural outlet of the four Vilayets.
167
- 19 -
If the principals concerned choose to make rearrange-
ments between themselves, they are of course at perfect
liberty to do so. The most the President can do, having
once accepted the limit of the four Vilayets, is to indi-
cate the advisability of a friendly understanding between
the High Contracting Parties, possibly on the basis of
purchase or of a territorial exchange. But even this
would not seem desirable or proper, in view of the fact
that if territorial exchanges are feasible they will in
any case be effected, and that at no earlier time was the
question of Kharput raised by this Government.
-- H. G. Dwight,
Division of Near Eastern Affairs,
Department of State.
168
Appendix V
Number 1
ECONOMIC POSITION OF PORTS
IN THE TREBIZOND VILAYET
- - -
The leading ports in the Vilayet of Trebizond,
east to west, - Rize, Trebizond, Tireboli, Kerasun and
Ordu - are open roadsteads lacking natural or artificial
harbors and frequently subject to violent westerly winds
making landings impossible. Their only water connec-
tions with European countries (except those bordering
on the Black Sea) are (a) via the Bosphorus, Sea of
Marmora, and Dardanelles, and (b) via the Danube. A
third route being actively considered now is the con-
struction of a canal at the junction of the Danube and
Morava rivers following down the Vardor Valley emptying
at Salonica on the Aegean Sea, and capable of accom-
modating ships of 1000 tons.
The five ports mentioned above do not possess
navigable rivers, nor interior railway connections.
The principal highway is the ancient Teheran-Tabriz-
Erzerum route terminating at Trebizond. This alone is
responsible for the predominant position of Trebizond
which handles approximately 70% of the total imports
and 60% of the total exports of these five ports –
percentages, moreover, which correspond closely with
169
2
the situation thirty years ago, with respect to the five
ports. Riza has the double disadvantage of proximity to
the former Russian border and practical isolation by
reason of the very mountainous back country. Kerasun
and Ordu present nо special advantages, are flanked by
the Pontic ranges, and serve a hinterland which will
probably lie outside the Armenian State. The choice of
the chief port of the future is limited, therefore, to
Trebizond and Tireboli.
As between Trebizond and Tireboli, the most
vital consideration is the development of transportation
routes to the interior vilayets of Erzerum, Van and
Bitlis. At the present time the advantage belongs to
Trebizond on account of the well-established caravan
route usable for motor trucks, while Tireboli has no
road worthy the name. Still, it is evident that a rail-
way of some description must be built. Competent
engineers and Turkish government officials have sug-
gested that a railway to either port should properly
pass through Baiburt and Gumush-khana. The question
remaining is the relative merits of the Gumush-khana-
Trebizond and Gumush-khana-Tireboli routes, a ques-
tion which must be decided in favor of the latter due
to the position of the Karshut Valley. In 1911-12
a French company, Régie Générale des Chemin de Fer
170
3
made surveys of the Trebizond route, but no definite action
was taken. Previously, in 1909, the Turkish Minister of
Public Works stated that a broad gauge railway could not
be constructed to Trebizond, therefore Tireboli should be
selected. The cost of construction he estimated would
exceed 16,000 Turkish pounds ($70,400) per kilometer, a
figure which should be compared with the estimate of 8,500
Turkish pounds ($37,400) per kilometer for the Samsun-Sivas
project, and the most expensive par kilometer construction
of any proposed railway in all Turkey. These estimates
are based on costs then prevailing, much below the present
seals. Neither the physical features of the country nor
the prospective traffic would warrant standard gauge con-
struction for many years to come. A 2'6" (1, 07 meter)
gauge would effect a saving of approximately 20% to 25%
over the estimates for standard gauge. Possibly a narrow
gauge line would suffice, resulting in still lower costs.
Careful surveys are necessary, with proper attention to
political conditions, before this important decision could
be definitely taken.
There is little choice with respect to port and
harbor facilities. Trebizond and Tireboli are located
not far distant from each other, and are subject in the
main to like climatic influences. The Turkish Minister
of Public Works recommended in 1909 the construction of
171
4
a port at Tireboli, providing the railway to Trebizond
was finally considered too difficult. The needed im-
provements at either port were reckoned to cost 350,000
Turkish pounds ($1,540,000). British interests, through
the National Bank of Turkey (a British institution) con-
cluded with the Turkish Government at August 21, 1911, an
agreement for the construction and working of the ports
of Samsun and Trebizond. The amount of capital involved
for both exceeded 2,000,000 Turkish pounds ($8,800,000),
which compared with the Turkish Minister's estimate of
1,250,000 Turkish pounds ($5,500,000) two years pre-
viously. The well-known British firm, Sir John Jackson
Company, Ltd., had already commenced the erection of a
breakwater at Trebizond when work was stopped in the
late summer of 1914.
Trebizond offers the following advantages, -
(a) stablished trading and shipping houses; (b) estab-
lished banks including Imperial Ottoman Bank and Banque
de Salonique; (c) established caravan routes; (d) loca-
tion further distant from Turkish provinces, therefore easier
to defend from Turkish aggression; (e) port works
started and railway surveys partially made.
Tireboli offers these advantages, - (a) rail-
way construction more feasible; (b) more centrally
172
5
located with respect to competitive ports of Batum and
Samsun; (c) located nearer to Turkish provinces, afford-
ing greater commercial advantages; (d) not subject to
the same opposition from the Greek Government or the
Anatolian Greeks; (e) apparently preferred by the Ar-
menians themselves.
Neither Trebizond nor Tireboli were highly
regarded by the Turkish Minister of Public Works in 1909.
In fact judging by the estimates for the various port
projects, he seemed to consider either Trebizond or
Tireboli as relatively unimportant. While it is pos-
sible that the determining fact in this case was the
desire not to favor Turkish Armenia, undoubtedly the
future of either port would not compare economically with
some of the other ports considered, such as Samsun and
Mersina. Considering the whole Turkish Empire, the Tur-
kish Minister regarded the proposed railway as only
thirteenth in importance and in his third grouping.
Trebizond has lost most of its old Persian
transit trade because of the Transcaucasian railways
and Russian-Persian tariffs, freight rates, and commercial
treaties. Despite Persia's increased prosperity and the
higher scale of prices, her exports to Trebizond declined
from $5,237,000 for the five-year period 1861-5 to
$675,000 for the five-year period 1906-10; Persia's
173
6
imports from Trebizond dropped from $6,560,000 to
$1,580,000, contrasting these two periods. It is
doubtful if this port can regain much of the trade
even with railway connections to the Black Sea coast.
An important factor is the question of customs tariffs
and regulations at the various frontiers. A mutual
agreement between Armenia and Turkey allowing goods
in transit to move freely and not subjected to burden-
some export or import duties will accrue to the benefit
of Tireboli because this seaport is nearer the pro-
ductive regions of Kerasun and Ordu, and in fact, all
of Anatolian Turkey. It is not reasonable to expect
that Turkish Armenia can depend on much transit trade
from the countries eastward.
-- Eliot Grinnell Mears
American Trade Commissioner,
U.S. Department of Commerce;
Industrial and Commercial Expert,
Harbord Mission to Armenia and
Transcaucasia.
174
Appendix V
Number 2
RAILROAD PROJECTS FOR TURKISH-ARMENIA
BEFORE THE WAR
In 1908 when, as the representative from the Vilayet
of Erzerum in the Ottoman Parliament, I became acquainted
with the railroad projects for Turkish-Armenia, it became
evident to me that Russia and Germany had agreed not to
allow any railroad construction in Turkish-Armenia. France,
on the other hand, in order to please her powerful ally,
had adopted a policy of disinterestedness in this matter.
In the face of this situation, I undertook to inter-
est American capitalists in the railroad construction in
Armenia and I was meeting with considerable success when
German interests stepped in and, by virtue of their dip-
lomatic influence with the officials of the Turkish Govern-
ment, attempted to block the way of American capitalists.
From 1909 to 1911, two American companies pursued the
proposed plan of building about 2,000 kilometers of
railroads in Armenian Vilayets, but finally, due to
German intrigues, dropped the matter in disgust.
In 1911-1912 lengthy negotiations took place be-
tween French capitalists and the Turkish Government,
on the one hand, and between French capitalists and the
175
- 2 -
Russian Government on the other. As the outcome of
these negotiations, Russia agreed to yield in favor of
the French capitalists in this railroad project, with
the understanding that the above-mentioned roads were
to bе built on account of the Turkish Government and not
as an exclusive concession to French capitalists, so
that Russian capital would also participate in the
project.
On the part of French capitalists, these negotia-
tions were conducted by the Regie Generale des Chemins-
de-fer. In the summer of 1911 two separate expeditions
were started for the survey of the proposed railroad
lines: (a) Samsun-Sivas-Kharput; (b) Trebizond-Erzerum;
one by the French capitalists and the other by the
Turkish Ministry of Public Works.
These two separate investigations concurred in their
conclusions that the line running from Trebizond or Riza
to Erzerum would incur an exorbitant and prohibitive
expense, and concluded that the railroad leading from the
Black Sea to the highlands of Erzerum could be more econ-
omically built from Tripolis (Tireboli) by way of the
Karshut Valley to Erzerum.
When the result of this survey expedition became
known in 1912, the Ministry of Public Works undertook
176
- 3 -
to start a survey of the Tripolis (Tireboli) Harbor.
Then the representatives from Trebizond in Parliament pro-
tested against the Ministry and demanded that preference
be given to the Harbor of Trebizond in this matter of
railroad development, and succeeded in compelling the
Ministry to abandon the survey of the Harbor of Tripolis.
By an ex-Member of
the Ottoman Parliament.
177
Appendix V
Number 3
STATEMENT OF PREMIER VENIZELOS ON
TREBIZOND BEFORE THE COUNCIL OF TEN
Secretary's Notes of a Conversation held in
M. Рichon's room at the Quai d'Orsay, Paris, on
Tuesday 4 February, 1919, at 11:00 o'clock A. M.
The United States of America was represented at this
meeting by President Wilson, Mr. Lansing, Mr. Frazier, Mr.
Harrison, Lieutenant Burden, Mr. Day, and Mr. Westermann.
Great Britain, France, Italy, Japan, and Greece, were
represented by Messrs. Lloyd George, Clemenceau, Orlando,
Makino, Venizelos, and a number of others for each of the
countries concerned.
M. Venizelos had been asked the previous day by M.
Clemenceau to explain the territorial claims of Greece.
On this day he continued his explanation art spoke, inter
alia, regarding Trebizond as stated below:
″In reply to an enquiry which had been ad-
dressed to him by President Wilson, he explained
that Trebizond, containing a population of 360,
000 Greeks, had claimed to be formed into a small
Republic. He did not favour this proposal as he
thought it would be very undesirable to create a
178
- 2 -
large number of small States, especially as
the country surrounding the town comprised
а very large number оf Turks. In his opin-
ion, the vilayet of Trebizond should form
part of the State of Armenia.
″MR. LLOYD GEORGE enquired whether M.
Venizelos had any idea as to what should con-
stitute the Armenian State.
″M. VENIZELOS said that in his opinion
the Armenian State should include the six
Armenian vilayets, together with Russian
Armenia and the vilayets of Trebizond and
Adana.
″MR. LLOYD GEORGE enquired whether
Cilicia would be included in the Armenian
State.
″M. VENIZELOS replied in the affirma-
tive and said that Armenia would contain all
the territories around Mount Ararat.
″PRESIDENT WILSON remarked that the
whole question was mixed up with humane con-
siderations. The American missionaries had
said that the Turks had also treated the
Turks very badly at the time they were ill-
179
- 3 -
treating the Armenians. He enquired if
M. Venizelos could throw any light on this
report.
″M. VENIZELOS said that no Turks had
been ill-treated; but Mahomedans, such as
Arabs, Kurds, etc., had certainly been per-
secuted, and that was quite natural."
180
Appendix V
Number 4
(Paraphrase)
Athens
14 May 1920.
Frazier to Colby.
File No. 763.72119/9863
The terms of the Turkish Treaty were read before
the Boule yesterday by the Prime Minister. During the
course of his ensuing speech M. Venizelos gave voice
to the hope that the Armenia to be constituted by Pres-
ident Wilson might be as large as practicable. The
Premier expressed a belief that the President would not
grant Armenia access to the sea through Trebizond and
thus divide the Vilayet of Trebizond. When the question
was first discussed M. Venizelos was of the opinion that
Armenia and Pontus might be placed under the jurisdic-
tion of mandatories, and that the territorial divisions
might be manipulated in such a way as to constitute a
federation of the two regions, the populations con-
cerned had, whether happily or unhappily he could not
say, disapproved of this solution. But he would not be
disturbed if the whole province of Trebizond were de-
tached from Turkey and made a part of Armenia. The
Hellenism of that region was too strong for cooperation
181
- 2 -
with another Christian people to be feared. He thought
it impracticable to partition Pontus by severing a por-
tion of it in order to add it to another country. The
Armenian representatives at the Peace Conference fully
agreed with him on this point. He stated in conclusion
that he had thus expressed his views at length on ac-
count of the allusion to access to the Black Sea for
Armenia made in a note of President Wilson.
As for the Balkan Peninsula, M. Venizelos denied
emphatically that Greece entertained an ambition to
be the paramount Power in that part of the world.
Both Rumania and Serbia had expanded territorially
more than Greece, who welcomed this widening of their
frontiers. Greece, aside from the unsettled question
of Northern Epirus, wished no further territory north-
ward or in the direction of Bulgaria. AS the spokes-
man of the Liberal Party, he also stated that Greece
did not desire, either, to expand eastward. She would
even be pleased to enter into relations with Turkey
after the terms of the Treaty of Peace had been ful-
filled. The Greek people nevertheless had cause for
pride in that, after having survived centuries of
tribulation, they had been enabled to rise once more
and to effect their unity as a nation in the very
countries where for three thousand years they had
maintained an unbroken foothold.
182
Appendix V
Number 5
Right Honourable Sir,
Now that the Ottoman Delegation is discussing at
Paris with the Allied Governments the terms of the Tur-
kish Peace Treaty, we deem it our imperative duty to
respectfully draw the attention of the Conference to the
situation of the unredeemed Greeks of the Euxine Pontus.
On several occasions we ventured to submit various
memoranda to the Conference asking for the liberation of
our fellow-countrymen by the establishment of an inde-
pendent Pontian Republic on the southern shores of the
Black Sea stretching from the town of Rizeh to the west
of Sinope. Although this suggestion was based upon the
principle of the right of each people to self-determina-
tion of which the victory of the Allies was to conse-
crate the triumph, it did not receive the support of
the Conference; we therefore asked in our memorandum
of last March, addressed to the Peace Conference in
London, for the establishment in Pontus of at least an
autonomous form of government similar to that in force
in the Lebanon before the war. We were answered that
our desiderata had been under examination by the
Supreme Council.
To the Right Honourable Woodrow Wilson,
President of the United States of America,
WASHINGTON.
-----------
183
- 2 -
However, the Peace treaty handed to the Turkish
Delegates contains no special clause concerning the
Pontus which is only to enjoy the general guarantees
relating to minority rights. Yet Pontus constitutes a
geographical and economic unit entirely separate from
the rest of Asia Minor. It is inhabited by a popula-
tion which although having different religious opin-
ions, forms nevertheless a homogenous whole ethnically
seeing that the bulk of this population is beyond all
doubt a pure Greek descent, for even a great number of
Mussulmans numbering more than 200,000 have retained
their Greek speech and are conscious of their origin.
To these arguments which strengthen our claims,
must be added the sufferings which our fellow-country-
men have endured during the war and are still enduring.
More than 160,000 of them were brutally deported from
their hearths and homes by the Turks and more than
60,000 of them died during this cruel exile.
About a quarter of a million others fled into
Russia to escape Turkish persecutions. After the armis-
tice, they began to return, trusting to be able to take
up again their peaceful occupations and live without
fear of being disturbed by their savage oppressors.
Not only has their legitimate hope not been
realized but many of these refugees, natives of in-
184
- 3 –
land villages, have not even caught a glimpse of their
homes, owing to the constant danger of travelling aris-
ing from the bands of Turkish brigands and irregulars
with whom the country is infested.
After having dragged out a miserable existence dur-
ing a long time in the towns along the coast, where they
lived on the charity of our fellow-countrymen who had
bitterly suffered from the war themselves, they resigned
themselves to the idea of returning into exile in Russia,
a country now become inhospitable for them owing to the
Greeks participation in the expedition against the Bol-
sheviks, and where they had just lost excellent situa-
tions gained by long years of work and patient frugality.
They preferred however Russian anarchy to Turkish op-
pression and brutality.
From reliable news which has been reaching us from
several months, the situation in Pontus grows steadily
worse. Bands of Turkish irregulars created and supported
with money stolen from the Greeks unceasingly terrorize
them, unarmed and defenceless as they are, while the
Turkish population have been provided with arms by the
authorities.
The aim of all these measures is to take away from
this region its clearly Greek character, which it has
preserved after five centuries under a foreign yoke,
185
- 4 -
and to make it appear Turkish by rendering life there
intolerable to the Greeks.
In short, since their coming, the Turks have done
nothing but spread poverty, ruin and desolation in this
country which being abundantly blessed with all sorts of
natural wealth, was worthy to have a better fate.
We therefore venture to appeal once again to the
feelings of justice and equity of the Allied Governments,
imploring them in the name of the most elementary prin-
ciples of humanity to take urgent steps to put an end to
this deplorable situation in which a whole population is
threatened with extinction.
We ask for nothing more then a decent existence for
three quarters of a million human beings, nothing but a
modicum of security for their lives, honour and property,
so that they may live by honest work in peace and harmony
with their neighbours.
These rights have been recognised to every nation,
however small they may be, and we fail to imagine how
the democratic Powers of the Entente, who have proclaimed
and accomplished the liberation of so many oppressed
peoples, who have encouraged and helped the establish-
ment of free states in Syria, Palestine, Mesopotamia,
Armenia, etc., can think of refusing us rights which
they are said to be ready to grant to the Kurds, since
186
- 5 -
there is talk of creating an independent Kurdish state.
Moreover an independent Pontian State situated on the
confines of Armenia and living on friendly terms with it,
would render the existence of this latter more easier.
The fact must not be lost sight of that this is
not the first time of a trial of self-government being
made in Pontus. Just before the occupation of Trebizond
by the Russian Army in 1916, the Governor General of the
Province of Trebizond handed over the civil administra-
tion of the region to a Provisional Government composed
of members belonging to the Greek nationality under the
leadership of the Metropolitan and said: "We took
this country from the Greeks, it is to them that we
hand it back to-day."
This Greek Government, which was also recognised
by the Russian authorities, continued to assume the
responsibilities of civil administration to the general
satisfaction of the whole population without any dis-
tinction of nationality or creed during the whole time
the Russian occupation lasted, and during the critical
days from the Russian retreat until the Turkish re-oc-
cupation.
It was a just and equitable government, desirous
above all of assuring the interests of each and every
inhabitant and which showed itself capable of safe-
187
- 6 -
guarding order and discipline. It was thanked even by
the Turkish authorities themselves, represented by Gen-
eral Vehib Pasha, commanding the 3rd Turkish Army.
We venture to hope that the Entente Powers who
have at heart the establishment of peace and order in
the Near East will take into account our legitimate
national aspirations in the settlement of the Turkish
problem and consider the urgent steps to be taken in
order to save the Pontian population from utter des-
truction.
We beg to remain,
Sir,
Your obedient Servants.
Paris, July 10th, 1920.
CONGRES DES ORIGINAIRES DU PONT-EUXIN
Le Président
(Signed) C. J. G. Constantinidès,
Signed: Constantin-Jason G. Constantinidès, President of the Pan-Pontic Gongress.
(Signed) S. Economos, (S E A L)
Signed: Socrates Economos, President of the National League of the Euxine Pontus at Paris,
28, rue Serpent, PARIS VI.
188
Appendix V
Number 6
THE GREEKS OF PONTUS
1. (a) The Vilayet of Trebizond, according to
Turkish estimates, contained 1,122,947 persons in 1914,
with the following ethnic-religious distribution:
Moslems Greeks Armenians Various
921,128 161,574 40,237 8
(b) Greek estimates suggest that the Greek pop-
ulation of Trebizond may have been as much as 300,000 to
360,000 before the war and that the Armenians numbered
50,000. The Pontic Greeks claim that only 340,000 of the
Trebizond Moslems are true Turks, the remainder including
Surmenites, Circassians, Oflis, and Stavriotes.
(c) The estimates made for American Com-
mission to Negotiate Peace at Paris are as follows:
Sandjak Moslems Greeks Armenians
Number % Number % Number %
Trebizond 568,000 77.1 138,000 18.8 30,000 4.1
Gumush-khana 100,000 65 52,000 39 2,000 1
Lazistan 180,000 98 2,000 1 1,000 0.6
Moslems Greeks Armenians
Number % Number % Number %
848,000 79 192,000 17.9 33,000 3
2. The Permanent Bureau of the Congress of Greeks
originating from Pontus Euxinus, in a memorandum to the
President of the United States dated February 14, 1919,
189
- 2 -
and signed by the Bisheps and other notables of various
territories in Pontus, sets forth the national claims of
the unredeemed Greeks of these regions. The memorandum
urges that Pontus be restored to Greece, or else that
it be declared an autonomous Greek state under a Greek
commissioner, and under the direct protection of Greece.
3. Mgr. Chrysanthos, Archbishop of Trebizond, sub-
mitted a memorandum to the Peace Conference on May 2,1919,
urging that Pontus be constituted an autonomous Greek
state, and concluding:
"The near neighborhood of the future Armenian
state, and the commercial relations and common suf-
ferings of the two peoples constitute bonds between
them which we would gladly bind still closer. For
these reasons we are ready to welcome the creation
of bonds of close cooperation between the two States,
but on the express condition that each Autonomous
State shall possess absolute independence."
4. M. Venizelos, explaining the territorial claims
of Greece at the Peace Conference on February 4, 1919,
said that he did not favor the proposal of a small republic
of Trebizond, and that, in his opinion "the vilayet of
Trebizond should form part of the State of Armenia."
Speaking in the Greek Chamber upon the Turkish
Treaty on May 14, 1920, Premier Venizelos gave it as his
190
- 3 -
desire that President Wilson would give as much territory
as possible to Armenia, but that he should not grant a part
of Trebizond vilayet to the Armenian state. He stated
that he would not view with displeasure a decision which
would grant all of Trebizond vilayet to Armenia, but though
that the Pontic Greeks ought not to be divided between
Turkey and Armenia.
5. On July 10th, 1920, representatives located in
Paris of several organizations of the Pontic Greeks sent
to President Wilson a petition, which was a copy of a
similar one previously submitted to the Supreme Council
of the Allied Powers. They claim that Pontus is a geo-
graphical and economic unit entirely separate from the
rest of Asia Minor and protest that the Pontic Greeks
should be granted either independence or at least auton-
omy.
191
Appendix V
Number 7
GENERAL DISCUSSION OF ARMENIA'S ACCESS TO THE SEA
The note addressed to the President from San Remo by
the Supreme Council of the Principal Allied Powers, invit-
ing him to undertake the responsibility of fixing the
frontier between Turkey and Armenia, stated that a clause
would be inserted in the Treaty of Peace with Turkey to
that effect, farther binding the High Contracting Parties
to accept his decision as well as any stipulation he might
make with regard to access for Armenia to the sea. Such
a clause, in fact, appeared in the Draft Treaty handed to
the Turks before the President had accepted the invita-
tion of the Supreme Council, and reappeared without
material change in the final form of the Treaty as signed
at Sèvres on August 10.
In virtue of the authority thus conferred upon and
accepted by him, it has been recommended to the President
by the Committee making this report that he attribute
to Armenia the eastern part of the Vilayet of Trebizond,
with its sea coast, from the Georgian frontier to a
point between Tireboli and Kerasun. In case this recom-
mendation be accepted, the Armenian Republic will be
given direct access to the sea and full sovereignty
over a number of undeveloped ports and their hinterland.
192
- 2 -
In view of the fact, however, that access to this coastal
area from the tableland of Armenia proper has been rendered
by nature exceptionally difficult, that it contains at
present a comparatively small percentage of Armenians -
practically all of whom, furthermore, inhabit the western
end of the area - and that the Turkish, Laz and Greek ele-
ments of the indigenous population may make difficulties
for the Armenians in the work of developing their new ports
and the communications of the latter with the interior, it
has been thought advisable to draw particular attention to
those clauses of the Treaty of Sèvres which, independently
of the President's decision, provide Armenia with access
to the sea.
Trebizond
In Article 335 of the Treaty the City of Trebizond is
declared a Port of International Concern and placed under
the régime prescribed in Articles 336-345 for eight Eastern
ports. (In a separate convention between the Principal
Allied Powers and Greece, Dedeagatch is also declared a
Port of International Concern, subject to the same régime.)
The nature of this régime is described in Article 336
as follows:
"In the ports declared of international
concern the nationals, goods and flags of all
States Members of the League of Nations shall
enjoy complete freedom in the use of the port.
193
- 3 -
In this and all other respects they shall be
treated on a footing of perfect equality,
particularly as regards all port and quay
facilities and charges, including facilities
for berthing, loading and discharging, ton-
nage dues and charges, quay, pilotage, light-
house, quarantine and all similar dues and
charges of whatsoever nature, levied in the
name of or for the profit of the Government,
public functionaries, private individuals,
corporations or establishments of every kind,
no distinction being made between the nation-
als, goods and flags of the different States
and those of the State under whose sovereignty
or authority the port is placed.
"There shall be no impediment to the
movement of persons or vessels other than
those arising from regulations concerning
customs, police, sanitation, emigration
and immigration and those relating to the
import and export of prohibited goods.
Such regulations must be reasonable and
uniform and most not impede traffic unneces-
sarily."
There are further stipulations with regard to equality
of dues and charges (Articles 337-8), to the responsibilities
194
- 4 -
of the State under whose sovereignty the port is placed
as to works maintaining and improving the port and
approaches thereto (Articles 339-40), to free zones in the
port (Articles 341-44), and to the settlement by the League
of Nations of differences with regard to the interpreta-
tion or application of the foregoing Articles (Article 345).
Farther reference to Trebizond is made in Article 352,
in the following terms:
"Subject to the decision provided for in
Article 89, Part III (Political Clauses), free
access to the Black Sea by the port of Trebi-
zond is accorded to Armenia. This right of ac-
cess will be exercised in the conditions laid
down in Article 349.
"In that event Armenia will be accorded
a lease in perpetuity, subject to determina-
tion by the League of Nations, of an area in
the said port which shall be placed under the
general régime of free zones laid down in
Articles 341 to 344, and shall be used for
the direct transit of goods coming from or
going to that State.
"The delimitation of the area referred
to in the preceding paragraph, its connection
with existing railways, its equipment and ex-
195
- 5 -
ploitation, and in general a11 the condi-
tions of its utilization, including the
amount of the rental, shall be decided by
a Commission consisting of one delegate of
Armenia, one delegate of Turkey, and one
delegate appointed by the League of Nations.
These conditions shall be susceptible of
revision every ten years in the same manner."
Special attention is drawn to the first phrase of the
above article.
BATUM
The Treaty of Sèvres also grants Armenia access to the
sea through the port of Batum, which Article 335 includes in
the list of ports declared to be of international concern,
"subject to conditions to be subsequently fixed", and placed
under the régime defined in Articles 336-345. This right
might have been considered as implicit, in view of the facts
that Batum is the natural outlet of northern Armenia, that the
Treaty of Berlin had already made an eventually unsuc-
cessful attempt to convert Batum into a free port (Article
LIX), and that Armenia will presumably become a member of
the League of Nations. But Armenian rights in Batum are
explicitly recognized in Article 351, as follows:
"Free access to the Black Sea by the port
of Batum is accorded to Georgia, Azerbaijan
and Persia, as well as Armenia. This right of
196
- 6 -
access will be exercised in the conditions
laid down in Article 349."
Georgia, it is true, is not a party to the Treaty of
Sèvres; and on May 7th of this year she signed a Treaty
with Soviet Russia, which recognized her absolute posses-
sion of Batum. But the Department of State is informed,
both from Tiflis (Cable No. 69 of August 23) and from
London (Cable No. 1383 of September 14), that before evac-
uating Batum in July the British exacted as the chief con-
dition of their withdrawal a formal promise that Georgia
would grant to Armenia and Azerbaijan free transit to and
free use of the port of Batum.
ALEXANDRETTA AND OTHER PORTS
Other ports which by implication will be free to
Armenia are Haidar Pasha (Constantinople), Smyrna, Alexan-
dretta, Haifa and Basra. Article 335 of the Turkish
Treaty declares them ports of international concern, open
on equal terms to all members of the League of Nations,
while Articles 328 and 353 assure freedom of transit across
Turkish territory to the goods and conveyances of the Al-
lied Powers, without individual discrimination in charges
or treatment.
For this reason, and in spite of the fact that certain
friends of Armenia have urged the creation of an economic
corridor to the Mediterranean and the designation of Ayas,
197
- 7 -
on the Gulf of Alexandretta, as an Armenian port, it
has not been considered necessary to recommend special
measures providing the new Republic with an outlet to
the south. If it had been possible to include Kharput
in Armenia the case might have worn a different aspect,
since the economic currents of that province run west-
ward or into the Mediterranean. But in the circumstan-
ces the claim falls away of itself. The Black Sea is
the natural outlet of the Armenian highlands, no point
of which lies within 300 miles of Alexandretta, the
nearest southern port, and none of whose trade has
hitherto reached the eastern Mediterranean. Further-
more, since the attribution to Armenia, for purely
economic reasons, of a considerable Black Sea littoral,
will tax to the utmost the administrative resources of
the young state and the patience of her neighbors, it
has been felt that neither for the Armenians of Armenia
nor for those of Turkey would it be just to lend even
so slender encouragement to the disturbing dream of a
Greater Armenia as might seem to be implied by the stip-
ulation of special rights in some Cilician port. If
at any future time railways should pierce the barrier
of the Eastern Taurus, connecting Erzerum or Bitlis with
Kharput and Cilicia or Diarbekir and the Mesopotamian
198
- 8 -
system, and traffic should begin to flow back and forth
between the Armenian plateau and the Mediterranean Sea,
it will in all probability be found that the existing pro-
visions of the Treaty of Sèvres are in this direction ade-
quate for the economic necessities of Armenia.
199
Appendix V
Number 8
T E X T
OF THE
ARMENIAN MINORITIES TREATY
200
T R E A T Y
BETWEEN THE PRINCIPAL ALLIED POWERS AND ARMENIA
SIGNED AUGUST 10, 1920
AT SÈVRES
THE BRITISH EMPIRE, FRANCE, ITALY AND JAPAN, the
Principal Allied Powers,
on the one hand;
And ARMENIA,
on the other hand;
Whereas the Principal Allied Powers have recognized
Armenia as a sovereign and independent State,
And Whereas Armenia is desirous of conforming her
institutions to the principles of liberty and justice,
and of giving a sure guarantee to all the inhabitants of
the territories over which she has assumed or may assume
sovereignty;
The High Contracting Parties, anxious to assure the
exception of Article 93 of the Treaty of Peace with
Turkey,
Have for this purpose appointed as their Plenipoten-
tiaries :
201
- 2 –
HIS MAJESTY THE KING OF THE UNITED KINGDOM ОТ GREAT
BRITAIN AND IRELAND AND OF THE BRITISH DOMINIONS BEYOND
THE SEAS, EMPEROR OF INDIA:
The Right Honourable Edward George Villiers, Earl of
Derby, K. G., P. C., K. C. V. 0., C. B., Ambassador Extra-
ordinary and Plenipotentiary of His Britannic Majesty at
Paris;
And
for the DOMINION of CANADA:
The Honourable Sir George Halsey Perley, K. C. M. G.,
High Commissioner for Canada in the United Kingdom;
for the COMMONWEALTH of AUSTRALIA:
The Right Honourable Andrew Fisher, High Commissioner
for Australia in the United Kingdom;
for the DOMINION of NEW ZEALAND:
The Honourable Sir James Allen, K. C. B., High
Commissioner for New Zealand in the United Kingdom;
for the UNION of SOUTH AFRICA:
Mr. Reginald Andrew Blankenberg, O. B. E., Acting
High Commissioner for the Union of South Africa in the
United Kingdom;
for INDIA:
Sir Arthur Hirtzel, K. C. B., Assistant Under-
Secretary of State for India;
202
- 3 -
THE PRESIDENT OF THE FRENCH REPUBLIC :
Mr. Alexandre Millerand, President of the Council,
Minister for Foreign Affairs;
Mr. Frédéric Francois-Marsal, Minister of Finance;
Mr. Auguste Paul-Louis Isaac, Minister of Commerce
and Industry;
Mr. Jules Cambon, Ambassador of France;
Mr. Georges Maurice Paléologue, Ambassador of
France, Secretary-General of the Ministry of Foreign
Affairs;
HIS MAJESTY THE KING OF ITALY:
Count Lelio Bonin Lelio Longare, Senator of the
Kingdom, Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary
of H. M. the King of Italy at Paris;
Mr. Carlo Galli, Consul;
HIS MAJESTY THE EMPEROR OF JAPAN:
Viscount Chinda, Ambassador Extraordinary and
Plenipotentiary of H. M. the Emperor of Japan at London;
Mr. K. Matsui, Ambassador Extraordinary and
Plenipotentiary of H. M. the Emperor of Japan at Paris;
ARMENIA :
Mr. Avetis Aharonian, President of the Delegation
of the Armenian Republic;
203
- 4 -
Mr. Boghos Nubar, Representative of the Joint
Armenian Council at Constantinople;
WHO having communicated their full powers found
in good and due form HAVE AGREED AS FOLLOWS:
CHAPTER 1.
- - -
ARTICLE 1.
Armenia undertakes that the stipulations contained
in Articles 2 to 8 of this Chapter shall be recognized as
fundamental laws, and that no law, regulation or official
action shall conflict or interfere with these stipulations
nor shall any law, regulation or official action prevail
over them.
ARTICLE 2.
Armenia undertakes to assure full and complete pro-
tection of life and liberty to all inhabitants of Ar-
menia without distinction of birth, nationality, language,
race or religion.
All inhabitants of Armenia shall be entitled to the
free exercise, whether public or private, of any creed,
religion or belief, whose practices are not inconsistent
with public order or public morals.
204
- 5 -
The penalties for any interference with the free
exercise of religion will be the same whatever the
religion concerned.
ARTICLE 3.
Armenia undertakes to recognize such provisions as
the Principal Allied Powers may consider opportune with
respect to the reciprocal and voluntary emigration of
persons belonging to racial minorities.
ARTICLE 4.
All Armenian nationals shall be equal before the law
and shall enjoy the same civil and political rights with-
out distinction as to race, language or religion.
The Armenian Government will within two years from
the coming into force of the present Treaty present to the
Principal Allied Powers a draft electoral system giv-
ing due consideration to the rights of racial minorities.
Differences of religion, creed or confession shall
not prejudice any Armenian national in matters relating
to the enjoyment of civil or political rights, as for
instance admission to public employments, functions and
honours, or the exercise of professions and industries.
No restriction shall be imposed on the free use by
any Armenian national of any language in private inter-
course, in commerce, in religion, in the press or in
publications of any kind, or at public meetings.
205
- 6 -
Notwithstanding any establishment by the Armenian
Government of an official language, adequate faculties
shall be given to Armenian nationals of non-Armenian
speech for the use of their language, either orally or
in writing, before the courts.
ARTICLE 5.
Armenian nationals who belong to racial, religious or
linguistic minorities shall enjoy the same treatment and
security in law ant in fact as the other Armenian nationals.
In particular they shall have an equal right to establish,
manage and control at their own expense charitable, religious
and social institutions, schools and other educational
establishments, with the right to use their own language
and to exercise their religion freely therein.
ARTICLE 6.
Armenia will provide in the public educational system
in towns and districts in which a considerable proportion
of Armenian nationals of other than Armenian speech are
resident adequate facilities for ensuring that in the
primary schools the instruction shall be given to the
children of such Armenian nationals through the medium of
their own language. This provision shall not prevent the
Armenian Government from making the teaching of the
Armenian language obligatory in the said schools.
206
- 7 -
In towns and districts where there is a considerable
proportion of Armenian nationals belonging to racial,
religious or linguistic minorities, these minorities shall
be assured an equitable share in the enjoyment and applica-
tion of the sums which may be provided out of public funds
under the State, municipal or other budgets for educational,
religious or charitable purposes.
ARTICLE 7.
Armenia agrees to take all necessary measures in rela-
tion to Moslems to enable questions of family law and per-
sonal status to be regulated in accordance with Moslem usage.
Armenia undertakes to afford protection to the mosques
cemeteries and other Moslem religious establishments. Full
recognition and all facilities shall be assured to pious
foundations (wakfs) and Moslem religious and charitable
establishments now existing, and Armenia shall not refuse
to the creation of new religious and charitable establish-
ments any of the necessary facilities guaranteed to other
private establishments of this nature.
ARTICLE 8.
Armenia agrees that the stipulations in the foregoing
Articles, so far as they affect persons belonging to racial,
religious or linguistic minorities, constitute obligations
of international concern and shall be placed under the
207
- 8 -
guaranty of the League of Nations. They shall not be
modified without the assent of majority of the Council of
the League of Nations. The United States, the British,
France, Italy and Japan hereby agree, not to withhold their
assent from any modification in these articles which is in
due form assented to by a majority of the Council of the
League of Nations.
Armenia agrees that any Member of the Council of the
League of Nations shall have the right to bring to the
attention of the Council any infraction or danger of
infraction of any of these obligations, and that the
Council may thereupon take such action and gave such
direction as it may deem proper and effective in the
circumstances.
Armenia further agrees that any difference of opinion
as to questions of law or fact arising out of these
Articles between the Armenian Government and any one of the
Principal Allied and Associated Powers or any other Power,
a Member of the Council of the League of Nations, shall be
held to be a dispute of an international character under
Article 14 of the Covenant of the League of Nations. The
Armenian Government hereby consents that any such dispute
shall, if the other party there to demands, be referred to
the Permanent Court of International Justice. The decision
of the Permanent Court shall be final and shall have the
same force and effect as an award under Article 13 of the
Covenant.
208
- 9 -
CHAPTER 11
- - -
ARTICLE 9.
Each of the Principal Allied Powers on the one part
and Armenia on the other shall be at liberty to appoint
diplomatic representatives to reside in their respective
capitals, as well as Consuls-General, Consuls, Vice-
Consuls and Consular agents to reside in the towns and
ports of their respective territories.
Consuls-General, Consuls, Vice-Consuls and Consular
agents, however, shall not enter upon their duties until
they have been admitted in the usual manner by the Gover-
nment in the territory of which they are stationed.
Consuls-General, Consuls, Vice-Consuls and Consular
agents shall enjoy all the facilities, privileges, exemp-
tions and immunities of every kind which are or shall be
granted to consular officers of the most favoured nation.
АRТIСLE 10.
Armenia undertakes to make no Treaty, Convention or
arrangement and to take no other action which will prevent
her from joining in any general Convention for the equit-
able treatment of the commerce of other States that may
be concluded under the auspices of the League of Nations
within five years from the coming into force of the
present Treaty.
209
- 10 -
Armenia also undertakes to extend to all the Allied
Powers any favours or privileges in Customs matters which
she may grant during the same period of five years to
any State with which since August, 1914, the Allied Powers
have been at war, or to any State which in vurtue of Article
222 of the Treaty of Peace with Austria has special Customs
arrangements with such States.
ARTICLE 11.
Pending the conclusion of the general Convention
referred to above, Armenia undertakes to treat on the same
footing as national vessels or vessels of the most favoured
nation the vessels of all the Allied Powers who accord
similar treatment to Armenian vessels.
As an exception to this provision the right of any
Allied Power to confine her maritime coasting trade to
national vessels is expressly reserved.
ARTICLE 12.
Pending the conclusion under the auspices of the
League of Nations of a general Convention to secure and
maintain freedom of communications and of transit,
Armenia undertakes to accord freedom of transit to per-
sons, goods, vessels, carriages, wagons and mails in
transit to or from any Allied State over Armenian terri-
tory, and to treat them at least as favourably as the
210
- 11 –
persons, goods, vessels, carriages, wagons, and mails
respectively of Armenian or of any other more favoured
nationality, origin, importation or ownership, as regards
facilities, charges, restrictions and all other matters.
Tariffs for transit traffic across Armenia and
tariffs between Armenia and any Allied Power involving
through tickets or waybills shall be established at the
request of the Allied Power concerned.
Freedom of transit will extend to postal, telegraphic
and telephonic services.
Provided that no Allied Power can claim the benefit оf
these provisions on behalf of any part of its territory in
which reciprocal treatment is not accorded in respect of
the same subject-matter.
If within a period of five years from the coming into
force of the present Treaty no general convention as afore-
said shall have been concluded under the auspices of the
League of Nations, Armenia shall be at liberty at any time
thereafter to give twelve months notice to the Secretary
General of the League of Nations to terminate the obliga-
tions of the present Article.
ARTICLE 13.
All rights and privileges accorded by the foregoing
Articles to the Allied Powers shall be accorded equally to
all States, Members of the League of Nations.
211
- 12 -
The Present Treaty, in French, in English and in
Italian, of which in case of divergence the French
text shall prevail, shall be ratified. It shall come
into force at the same time as the Treaty of Peace with
Turkey.
The deposit of ratifications shall be made at
Paris.
Powers of which the seat of the Government is out-
side Europe will be entitled merely to inform the Govern-
ment of the French Republic through their diplomatic repre-
sentative at Paris that their ratification has been given;
in that case they must transmit the instrument of ratifi-
cation as soon as possible.
A prosès-verbal of the deposit of ratifications will
be drawn up.
The French Government will transmit to all the
signatory Powers a certified copy of the prosès-verbal
of the deposit of ratifications.
IN FAITH WHEREOF the above-named Plenipotentiaries
have signed the present Treaty.
DONE at Sèvres, the tenth day of August one thousand
nine hundred and twenty, in a single copy which will
remain deposited in the archives of the French Republic,
212
- 13 –
and of which authenticated copies will be transmitted
to each of the signatory Powers.
(L. S.) DERBY.
(L. S.) GEORGE H. PERLEY.
(L. S.) ANDREW FISHER.
(L. S.) JAMES ALLEN.
(L. S.) R. A. BLANKENBERG.
(L. S.) ARTHUR HIRTZEL.
(L. S.) A. MILLERAND.
(L. S.) F. FRANCOIS-MARSAL.
(L. S.) JULES CAMBON.
(L. S.) PALÉOLOGUE.
(L. S.) BONIN.
(L. S.) K. MATSUI.
(L. S.) A. AHARONIAN.
213
Appendix V
Number 9
ARMENIAN PETITION TO PRESIDENT WILSON
REGARDING TO BOUNDARY DECISION
(a) Despatch from the Embassy at Paris.
No. 1537
Paris, August 20th, 1920
The Honorable
The Secretary of State
Washington
Sir:
Referring to the Embassy's telegram No. 1533,
August ll, 6 p. m., transmitting a message from Mr. A.
Aharonian, President of the Armenian Peace Delegation, I
have the honor to enclose herewith a communication ad-
dressed to the President under date of July 22nd, and
signed by Mr. Aharonian and by Boghos Nubar Pasha, Presi-
dent of the Armenian National Delegation, relative to the
arbitration of the western frontier of Armenia in ac-
cordance with the provisions of Article 89 of the Turkish
Treaty. The documents accompanying this communication
are transmitted under separate cover.
At the time of presenting these papers, Mr.
Aharonian called attention to the map of Armenia (No. 10)
214
- 2 -
and explained that the Armenian Government was prepared
to renounce its claim to the western part of the Vilayet
of Trebizond and the southern part of the Vilayets of
Bitlis and Van which are marked in green oblique lines
on the map in question - although these territories are
included in the four provinces mentioned in Article 89
of the Turkish Treaty. While the Armenian Government
hoped that the western portion of the Vilayet of Treb-
izond might of its own volition federalize itself with
the Armenian Republic, it did not desire to seek the
forcible inclusion of this territory within the boun-
daries of Armenia. On the other hand, the Armenian
Government asked that the coast from a point east of
Trebizond to a point west and south of Batum should be
given to Armenia in order to ensure to her free access
to the sea.
Finally: Mr. Aharonian called attention to the portion
of the Vilayet of Kharpout marked in red oblique
lines on the map. Although not included in the four
Vilayets mentioned in Article 89, this territory was
claimed by Armenia for two reasons, first, as it formed
part of the Central Plateau, and, second, as the majority
of the population was unquestionably Armenian.
There is also transmitted under separate cover
a map composed of four sheets of the 1:1,000,000 map
215
- 3 -
with the boundaries of the proposed Armenian State clearly
indicated, which was furnished me by Mr. Aharonian.
I have the honor to be, Sir,
Your obedient servant,
Enclosure:- For the Ambassador :
Original letter to the President. (Sgd) Leland Harrison
Accompaniment.
- - - - - -
(b) The Armenian Petition.
(Extracts only)
FRONTIERS OF ARMENIA.
-:-:-:-:-
Determining the area within which the President of
the United States of America will fix the frontiers of
Armenia, the Turkish Peace Treaty designates the four
provinces of Erzerum, Trebizond, Bitlis and Van.
Even if the President of the United States, while
adhering to the letter of the Treaty, were to attribute
to Armenia the whole of these four provinces, the result-
ing frontiers would have none of the characteristics of
a geographical unity.
216
- 4 -
The present boundaries of the above mentioned
provinces were fixed by the Turkish Government in pur-
suance of a political object, and took into account
neither geographical necessities nor local requirements,
much less the ethnical unity of their populations. The
project, on the contrary, aimed at the "denationaliza-
tion" of the Armenian provinces by changing their boun-
daries, by attaching portions of an Armenian province,
arbitrarily mutilated, to other adjoining provinces in-
habited by mussulmans, so as to prevent the formation
of an Armenian Majority in regions essentially Armenian.
For more than half a century this system has been
so often applied that at the present day no two maps,
official or non-official, will be found to agree in
regard to the administrative limits of the Ottoman
provinces. ...
We find that, in the time of Suleyman, the geo-
graphical unity of Armenia was preserved within the
limits of the first Ottoman administrative provinces,
under the name of one province, the "Eyalet of Erzerum"
(Principality).
The boundaries of this province, corresponding to
the natural lines of the soil, are, on all the maps of
the speech, identical with the ancient delimitations of
217
- 5 -
Armenia Major, the territories of which constitute a perfect
geographical unity, and which, in the science of Stratigraphy,
is known as the Central Plateau of Armenia.
It is bounded on the west by the river Euphrates, on
the South by the Armenian Taurus, on the East and North East
by the Turco-Persian frontier and the Russo-Turkish frontier
as it was before 1878; on the North by the province of
Trebizond.
The province of Erzerum, thus delimited, was called by
the Turks Ermenistan (Armenia) and retained its boundaries
from the time of the first administrative code of the 16th
century till the Salnames (Official Almanachs of the Ot-
toman Government) of the 19th century.
Heliographical fac-simules of the best maps of Asiatic
Turkey before 1878 are annexed to this memorandum. The
President of the United States will see by these documents
the extent and administrative limits of the province of
Erzerum (Levassieur's map).
Comparing the administrative divisions of the British
map accompanying the Treaty, with those of the former
"Eyalet" of Erzerum it will be noticed that different
portions of one and the same orographically indivisible
unity have been detached artificially from the province
of Erzerum.
These divisions were operated more particularly
in the south. ...
218
- 6 -
The Taurus, has always been the frontier, not of a
province, but entirely of two different countries.
In regard to the Euphrates, this river constitutes
the historical line of demarcation between Greater and
Little Armenia.
When the first Ottoman administrative delimitations
were effected the Euphrates was taken as the natural
western boundary of the Eyalet of Erzerum. The geo-
graphical and statigraphical maps annexed hereto show the
strength of this line.
The Armenian Delegation ventures to insist on this
point more particularly because, apart from administra-
tive, statigraphical and ethnical considerations it
should not be forgotten that, from an economic point of
view, as explained in the Armenian note handed to General
HARBORD on September 4, 1919, the mineral riches of the
country can only be reached where sismic upheavals have
broken the immense sheet of lava covering the Central
Plateau. It is in the water-course depressions around the
Plateau that the Armenian wealth is accessible.
The mineralogical map of Armenia (See Annex) indi-
cates nine minefields of different descriptions in the
depression of Kharput alone.
The Armenian Delegation, although aware that the
scope of the present arbitration is limited to the four
219
- 7 -
provinces of Trebizond, Erzerum, Bitlis and Van, begs leave
to submit to President Wilson's judgment the foregoing
historical, economic and (particularly) geographical con-
siderations relative to Kharput, which is not included in
the four provinces mentioned in the Treaty.
The Delegation trusts that these considerations, in
view of their great importance, will be taken into ac-
count; more particularly as it has deemed desirable to
abandon all claims to certain non-Armenian regions such as
Hakkiari, and the greater portion of the Vilayet of
Trebizond, which, nevertheless, are comprised within the
four provinces the attribution of which is submitted to
arbitration.
The Armenian Delegation begs therefore to express
the following hopes:
I. That the western and southern frontiers of
Armenia will be drawn to correspond with the boundaries
of the former province of Erzerum, as indicated on the map
annexed hereto (see Annex). It should be particularly
remarked that this province represents Ancient Armenia
Major and, scientifically, the Central Plateau of Armenia,
one and rationally indivisible.
II. That the northern frontier will be delimited so
as to include the Black Sea coast-from 0ff-Surméné to the
former Russo-Turkish frontier on the mountains sloping
to the river Chorok, thus giving Armenia means of com-
220
- 8 -
munication between the interior and the sea.
These conditions being observed, the frontier line
desired by Armenia would start at a point west of Off,
on the shores of the Black Sea, ascend towards the Pontic
Chain, past westward along the crests of the latter to
Gumuch-Khané in Armenian territory, and thence descend
Southwards, following the Western Administrative limits
of Erzerum as far as the Euphrates, which would thence
form the frontier, as far as the great barrier of the
Armenian Taurus stretching Eastward from Teleck to Bache
Kale, South-East of Van, to meet the Persian frontier. ...
TOPOGRAPHICAL PARTICULARITIES
OF ARMENIAN LAND COMMUNICATIONS.
-:-:-:-:-:-
The rivers Kelkid and Chorok mark an arc-shaped
longitudinal depression running from East to West, paral-
lel with the Coast.
The whole stretch of the narrow band of territory be-
tween the mouth of the Chorok and that of the Yeshil-Irmak
is occupied by the Pontic Chain, which the well-known
English geologist Oswald described as the coast-chain of
the Armenian Plateau (See Annex). Its greatest width is
in the middle of the arc, South of Trebizond, at the
Source of the two rivers. The width of the chain here,
221
- 9 -
from Cape Yeres, west of Trebizond, to the source of the
Velkid and Chorok, is about 100 kilometres; while at the
two extremities of the arc it is only 60 kilometres. Its
greatest altitudes are in the Eastern portion of the
Chain, where the summits rise to 3000 and 3.500 metres,
and even (South of Rizeh) 3.700 m. In the centre, South
of Trebizond and Kirassounde, there are also a few peaks
of 3.000 metres. The western portion is comparatively
low, the summits not exceeding 2.000 metres.
The littoral thus delimited was the northern rampart
of the Kingdom of Armenia before becoming, under the
Byzantine Empire, the Kingdom of the Pont-Euxine. ...
No attempt has ever been made by the Ottoman Govern-
ment to build roads connecting the interior with the Coast
and taking advantage of the topographical features of the
country. Of those that exist only the Trebizond road is
more or less fit for carriage traffic; the Rizeh, Off and
Atineh roads are more mule tracks.
The variations of altitude of these four roads
compared with those of a possible route descending south-
ward of Rizeh along the river Kalepontamos are such that
the advantages of the latter route are incontestable. For,
whereas all the other routes traverse all four zones of
the Chain the Kalepontamos road would not rise even to
the third zone.
222
- 10 -
Whatever its advantages, however, this road does not
yet exist, and for the present and for some time to come,
the only practicable communications between the interior of
Armenia and the Black Sea are the two valleys traversing
the central and eastern fractions of the Pontic Chain: on
the west, the valley of Kershut, which is utilized by the
Trebizond road from Ardassa, in the heart of Western
Armenia; on the East, the valley of the Chorok, the main
artery of Eastern Armenia.
Armenia cannot be reconstituted and prosper if these
two main arteries be detached from her geographical unity.
The first, the Trebizond road, is suitable for car-
riage traffic, and is the only practicable route. From
Trebizond to Ardassa it belongs to the region of Trebi-
zond, but on leaving Ardassa it enters the heart of the
Armenian Plateau.
The Erzinghian carriage road joins it at Tekkeh.
The Armenian Delegation respectfully begs President
WILSON to consider the desirability of including this
junction of Tekkeh in Armenian territory.
In regard to the valley of the Chorok it represents
incontestably the whole economic future of Armenia. ...
The mouth of the Chorok is the natural line of de-
marcation between two young republics. It is navigable,
and the valley of the Chorok constitutes the sole route
223
- 11 -
providing access to the interior of Eastern Armenia.
Trebizond being attributed to Turkey, Batum to
Georgia, the only site meeting the requirements of a
maritime debouché for the Armenian Plateau is the Bay
of Rizeh. Until a railway is built the Trebizond-Rizeh
and Rizeh-Chorok roads must continue to be the only
means of communication between that port and the inter-
ior of the country.
As indicated on the Topographical map (Annex I,
No 9) it is indispensable that, on the west, the mouth
of the Surmené and the cross–roads of Tekkeh; and on the
East the mouth of the Chorok be comprised within the
frontiers of Armenia.
The Armenian Republic has unfortunately already ex-
perienced the bitter disadvantages and perils of a state
encircled and deprived of an outlet to the sea. This
lack of communication with the world is responsible for
the death of 180,000 Armenians from famine.
The reports presented by Colonel Haskell, the
indefatigable American Commissioner, indicate the extra-
ordinary difficulties encountered in the despatch of
American wheat to Armenia.
These difficulties are due solely to the lack of
a port and direct communication between the interior
224
- 12 -
of Armenia and the sea.
The Armenian Delegation confidently trusts, there-
fore, that the President of the United States, will at-
tribute to Armenia a suitable outlet to the Sea with
adequate means of communications with the interior.
225
Appendix VII
STATUS OF THE OLD BOUNDARY BETWEEN TURKEY AND PERSIA
AT THE POINT WHERE THE BOUNDARY
BETWEEN TURKEY (AUTONOMOUS AREA OF KURDISTAN)
AND ARMENIA JOINS IT.
In order to prevent confusion and dispute regarding
the point on the frontier between Turkey and Persia at
which the new frontier between Armenia and Turkey begins,
it has been described in the text of the President's de-
cision as a point upon the administrative boundary between
the Sandjaks of Van and Hakkiari. This method of defini-
tion has been chosen because it enables the Boundary Com-
mission to shorten or elongate this administrative boun-
dary in order to attach it definitely to the old boundary
between Turkey and Persia.
This method of description was necessitated by the
fact that the position of the boundary between Turkey and
Persia, which depends upon the "Treaty of Limits between
Turkey and Persia, signed at Erzeroom, May 19/31, 1847",
is entirely unsettled. This Treaty is published in
"British and Foreign State Papers", 1854-1855, vol. 45,
London. 1865, pp. 874-876.
Attempts were made to settle this boundary in 1849
and again in 1878. The boundary was finally marked in
226
- 2 -
1913-14 by a Turco-Persian Frontier Commission, which
demarcated the whole length of the frontier from Fac on
the Persian Gulf to Mt. Ararat, a distance of 1180 miles.
Of this distance 1140 miles were marked with boundary
monuments, leaving 40 miles undemarcated near the Persian
village of Kotur. The work of this Commission is des-
cribed in "Records of the Survey of India", Volume IX,
1914-15, Calcutta, 1916, pp. 164-173.
Unfortunately the eastern terminus of the Armenian
frontier established by President Wilson in 1920 lies
within these 40 miles.
A summary of the points in dispute within the forty
miles left undemarcated in 1913-14 will be found in the
Reports of the Congress of Berlin in 1878. These reports
discuss the various controversies between the Persians and
the Turks regarding the village of Kotur and the highway
through the pass west of that village.
An authenticated copy of the "Carte Identique" cover-
ing this area was reproduced, facing p. 2976, in Sir
Edward Hertslet's "The Map of Europe by Treaty, showing
the various Political and Territorial Changes which have
taken place since the General Peace of 1814, with numerous
Maps and Notes", Volume IV, 1875 to 1891, London, 1891.
The same collection of treaties explains the status of
the boundary near Kotur and the various attempts to settle
and mark it.
227
- 3 -
It would be well, in case the matter comes up, to
study Article XVIII of the Treaty of San Stefano, 1878
(pp. 2686-2687); the note on Kotur and the Armenians
(p. 2756); the representation of the Turkish-Persian
Frontier near Kotur as shown on the "Sketch Map of the
Russo-Turkish frontier in Asia, Based upon the Russian
Staff Map, showing the Boundaries as proposed by the
Preliminary Treaty of San Stefano and as Fixed by the
Treaty of Berlin" (this map faces pp. 2794 and leaves
the village of Kotur in Turkey rather than in Persia);
Article LX of the Treaty of Berlin by which "the Sublime
Porte cedes to Persia the town and territory of Khotour,
as fixed by the Mixed Anglo-Russian Commission for the
delimitation of the frontiers of Turkey and Persia."
(This is printed on p. 2796, with a long footnote des-
cribing attempts to settle the boundary at this point).
A study of these materials and those listed below
would give the State Department the necessary details
regarding the unmarked 40 miles of the boundary between
Turkey and Persia, in case a question arises regarding
the point at which the boundary established by President
Wilson's decision joins the frontier between Turkey and
Persia.
The Turko-Persian frontier Commission of 1914 operated
under the terms of a protocol (not seen) signed in Con-
L.M.
228
- 4 -
stantinople November 17, 1913, by Turkey, Great Britain,
Russia, and Persia.
Reference to the negotiations leading up to this
agreement and to the terms of the protocol will be found
in:
(1) House of Commons Debates (Vol. 64, p. 1063,
proceedings of July 18, 1914.);
(2) A speech by Premier Goremykine opening the
Russian Duma, February 9, 1916 (see La
Question Persane, by G. Demorgny, p. 287;
(3) An article on page 487 of L'Asie Française
for November, 1914;
(4) London Times, October 28, 1913, p. 7,
November 17, 1913, p. 7,
November 19, 1913, p. 7.
The mapping of the northern part of the boundary, in-
cluding the Kotur district, was entrusted to the Russians.
The Russian maps were prepared on a scale of 2 versts to
1 inch.
229
Appendix IX
Military Situation with Relation to Ar-
menia. Estimate for August, l920.
Forces Hostile to and Favorable
to Armenian Success.
In January 1918, the Soviet Government of Russia
issued a statement, which was repeated on June 17, 1920,
that it was willing to recognize the independence of
Armenia including all Armenian lands in Turkey and Rus-
sia. Despite this pronouncement Armenia lies in the
pathway of the Soviet Government’s desire to weaken the
hated capitalism of Great Britain, if possible, by at-
tacks aimed at Allied control over Constantinople, and
by use of Pan-Islamic agitation against British control
of Egypt, Mesopotamia and the Middle East. It is neces-
sary, therefore, to estimate the power of Soviet Russia
and weigh it in the balance as the most dangerous among
the elements opposed to Armenian independence.
Russia
The approximate total possibility of Bolshevist mil-
itary strength is 4,000,000 rifles plus seven Labor Armies.
Their estimated effectives, in August 1920, were:
upon the Polish front – 162,500 " " Roumanian " – 10,000 " " Crimean " – 35,000 " " Caucasian " – 60,000 in Turkestan(Gen'l
Kuropatkin) – 56,000 in Transbaikal – 5 infantry
divisions
230
- 2 -
Fortunately there is no Bolshevist fleet in the
Black Sea.
Opposed to these Bolshevist forces are the follow-
ing active armies:
upon the Polish front - 95,000 Poles " " Roumanian " – – " " Crimean " – 50,000 troops with
Gen’l Wrangel and 15,000 in the Don, Kuban and Terek regions
in lower Russia –
20,000
Social Revolu- tionists
"
"
East Siberia (Gen’l Semenoff)
10,000
troops
Transcaucasia
Opposed to the Armenian occupation, through their
present dependence upon Soviet Russia, are the troops of:
the Azerbaidjan Social- ist Republic, 14,000 regulars 30,000 reserves “ Russian Bolshevist
troops in Batum, 15,500
Momentarily favorable to Armenian desires are:
the Georgians, 14,900 equipped troops.
The available Armenian manpower is to be estimated
at about 100,000. In Transcaucasia they have at their
disposal.
Armenian regulars, 20,000 " reserves, 40,000
To these are to be added the few Armenians holding
out against the Turkish Nationalists in Hadjin and towns
231
- 3 -
in Cilicia, who have proclaimed what is called the Amanus
Republic, and have appealed for the support of General
Gouraud’s French troops in Syria.
Persia and Mesopotamia
The British forces in Persia (chiefly Persian Cos-
sacks and British Indians) number about 11,000, plus five
regiments of the South Persian Rifles (presumably about
6,000 men). In Mesopotamia the British forces number
9,650 white troops, 61,000 Indians and 6,000 local native
levies. These forces, friendly from the Armenian stand-
point, are neutralized by the Bolshevist menace from
Resht and Enzeli in Persia on the southern shores of the
Caspian Sea, and by serious Arab outbreaks around Bagdad
and to the north of it.
Turkey
By the treaty of Sèvres the Turkish government is em-
powered to maintain an army of 50,700 troops. The authority
exercised by the Inter-Allied Military Commissions, to be
appointed in accordance with Part V of the Turkish Treaty,
warrants the assumption that these troops cannot be used
in opposition to the establishment of the Armenian state.
The most bitter and effective opposition will come
from the Milli Teshkilat (literally "Organization of the
Nation"), the Turkish Nationalist party under the leader-
232
- 4 -
ship of Mustapha Kemal Pasha. The maximum effective forces
under his command were estimated in early July to be about
150,000. The morale of this army must have been seriously
impaired by the rapid Greek advance in June into the inter-
ior of Asia Minor from the Mediterranean litoral. The num-
ber of 150,000 may, indeed, be much too high an estimate.
The Anatolian peasantry is undoubtedly war weary. Recent
reports indicate that the necessary requisitioning upon
the countryside by Mustapha Kemal and his associate leaders
has farther alienated the native Turkish inhabitants. Recent
Armenian statements are to the effect that reports of 80,000
Turkish Nationalist forces at Erzerum are absolutely untrue.
Their information, coming via Erivan, is that the districts
of Bitlis and Van are entirely undefended, and that the
Nationalist leader at Erzerum has only 7,000 regular Turkish
troops under his command. Though this may be an underesti-
mate, it is incontestible that the Armenians have an advan-
tage in respect to the problem of occupation because the
communications from the west (Angora and Sivas) into Erzerum
vilayet are in much worse condition than those from the dis-
trict of Kars, now occupied by the Armenian troops.
The interallied fleet, chiefly British, controls the
Black Sea.
233
Appendix X
FINANCIAL POSITION
OF THAT PORTION OF THE FOUR VILAYETS
ASSIGNED TO THE NEW STATE OF ARMENIA
- - -
Since Article 241 of the Treaty with Turkey stipulates
that states acquiring territory from Turkey shall partici-
pate in the annual charge for the service of the Ottoman
public debt contracted before November 1, 1914, it is as-
sumed that the new state of Armenia will only have to be-
come responsible for the payment of an annual sum, rather
than the assumption of its proportionate part of the var-
ious pre-war issues of Turkish bonds. This point should
be clear as the principle is important. The financial
regime of Turkey was extremely complex, that is, instead
of issuing bonds the interest on which was to be paid out
of general revenues, specific revenues were assigned to
the service of particular loans. For example, the re-
ceipts of the tithe in a given province would be assigned
to the kilometric guarantee of some specified railroad.
Armenia should be exempted from the necessity of maintain-
ing in vigor special assignments of revenues which may
now apply to the Vilayets of Erzerum, Trebizond, Van and
Bitlis, so far as these are awarded to Armenia. Unless
these complicated arrangements of the Turkish system are
cancelled, the new Armenian state would be seriously
234
- 2 -
handicapped in the establishment of a modern financial
system which would have reasonable prospect of success.
In regard to the annual charge for which Armenia
becomes responsible, Article 243 specifies that it shall
bear the same ratio to the total sum required for the ser-
vice of the debt as the average revenues of the transfer-
red territory bore to the average revenue of the whole of
Turkey during the three financial years 1909-1910, 1910-
1911, and 1911-1912. There is little evidence to show
that, as is often affirmed, under the Turkish regime dis-
tricts inhabited by non-Turkish populations were obliged
to pay more than their proportionate share of taxes and
other contributions. For example, during the fiscal year
1911-1912 the per capita contribution of the inhabitants
of the vilayet of Trebizond was L T 1.16, that of Erzerum
L T 0.78, of Bitlis L T 0.69, and of Van L T 0.45, while
the per capita contribution for the empire as a whole was
L T 1.18.
Likewise, receipts per square kilometer in Trebizond
were L T 52.56, in Erzerum, L T 12.15, in Bitlis L T 8.09,
and in Van L T 3.96, as compared with average receipts per
square kilometer for the empire as a whole of L T 16.82.
The figure for Trebizond appears to be somewhat excessive,
but it is comparable with that of L T 65.60 for the vilayet
of Adrianople, L T 49.59 for Aidin (Smyrna), and L T 104.41
for Beirut.
235
- 3 -
As the distance increases from the administrative
center of the empire, Constantinople, there is a tendency
for revenues, both per capita and per square kilometer,
to decline. In relation to the relative development of
the vilayets, portions of which are to be assigned to
Armenia, compared with other vilayets of the empire,
receipts are perhaps smaller than might be expected. On
the other hand, it should be remembered that through the
industry and thrift of the Armenians their vilayets are
somewhat more highly developed than districts inhabited
by Turks, which have equal or superior natural resources.
Actual revenues in the Armenian vilayets are therefore
a somewhat larger percentage of potential revenues than
is the case in other parts of Turkey.
Apportionment of the Turkish debt according to the
ratio between the total revenues of the empire and the
revenues of those portions of the vilayets to be ceded
to Armenia seems by several tests to be eminently fair.
In the following calculations it is assumed that Armenia
acquires the entire vilayet of Erzerum, 75 per cent. of
Trebizond, 66 per cent. of Bitlis, and 63 per cent. of
Van. It is assumed further, as is necessary because of
the lack of more detailed statistics, that the revenues
of those portions of these vilayets, which are ceded to
Armenia, are typical of the revenues of the vilayets
as a whole. In other words, for purposes of comparison
236
- 4 -
with the total revenues of Turkey, all of the revenues of
Erzerum are considered, 75 per cent. of the revenues of
Trebizond, 66 per cent. of those of Bitlis, and 63 per
cent. of those of Van. Comparing the revenues of the
district to be assigned to Armenia with the total reve-
nues of the empire for the fiscal year 1911-1912, it
is found that this district contributed 5.6 per cent. Of
the revenues of the empire.
Another way of determining the fairness of the fin-
ancial obligations assigned to the new state of Armenia
is to discover what ratio the population of the district
assigned to Armenia bears to the population of the em-
pire as a whole. Oh this basis of comparison it is found
that the district assigned to Armenia contained 7.7 per
cent. of the estimated total population of the empire in
1911-1912. Using land area as a basis of comparison, it
is found, that the district assigned constitutes 5.0 per
cent. of the area of the Turkish Empire.
Since these percentages are in relatively close
harmony it may be reasonably concluded that the districts
under consideration were not unduly burdened with taxes
and, consequently, that the revenues of these districts
in comparison with the total revenues of the Turkish
Empire may be regarded as a proper basis for the appor-
tionment of the Turkish debt. This statement becomes
237
- 5 -
even more probable when it is discovered that the revenues
of the Armenian district in the fiscal year of 1910-1911
compared with the total revenues of the Empire, consti-
tuted 5.2 per cent. of such total revenues, a figure
very close to the 5.6 par cent. contributed in the fiscal
year 1911-1912. Statistics for the fiscal year 1909-1910
are not available.
Accepting the average contribution of Armenia as 5.4
par cent. of total Turkish revenues and assuming there-
fore that approximately 5.4 per cent. of the Turkish debt
on November 5, 1914, of L T 141,106,093 must be taken over
by the new state of Armenia, its obligations would be L T
7,619,729 ($33,526,807). The figures representing the
debt of Turkey are those given in Annex 1. of part VIII
of the draft Treaty of May 11, 1920. They should not be
regarded as more than provisional. The annual charges
for the service of this debt are given as L T 9,064,217,
and Armenia will thus be called upon to assume annual
payments of L T 489,467 ($2,153,634).
If revenues in the district assigned to Armenia ap-
proximate those of the fiscal years of 1910-1911 and
1911-1912, the Turkish portion of the Armenian state
should furnish about L T 1,630,000 ($7,172,000), for
the central government. Estimating that the population
of the territory acquired by Armenia from Turkey will
238
- 6 -
be 1,700,000, after the refugees have been repatriated,
the estimated revenues of L T 1,630,000 ($7,l72,000)
give per capita receipts of only $4.22, and of this
revenue, debt charges absorb L T 489,467, ($2,153,654),
leaving but L T 1,140,533, ($5,018,345), or L T 0.67
($2.95), for other administrative purposes. It should
be borne in mind that these revenues constitute the in-
come of the central government only and that, under the
Turkish system, there are also local revenues of con-
siderable importance but of uncertain amount. In other
words, the $7,172,000 above mentioned would not con-
stitute the entire governmental income of the territory
to be given to Armenia.
A clear picture of the position of Armenian finances
in comparison with those of Bulgaria, Great Britain and
the United States may be obtained from the following tables:
Per CapitaDebt
Per Capita Public Revenue
Per Capita Dept Charge
Ratio of Dept.Chg.
to Total Rev. Dollars Dollars Dollars Per.Cent. Armenia(1920) 19.72 4.22 1.27 30.0
Bulgaria(1914) 63.00 11.00 3.10 28.0
United States
(1919) 229.00 47.00 9.85 21.0
Great Britain
(1919) 753.00 85.00 26.24 30.0
Though by comparative standards the debt of Armenia is
negligible, the new state is so poor, as evidenced by its
239
- 7 -
pitiful per capita revenues, that even this small debt
requires for its service the same proportion of the
estimated income of the government as does the enormous
debt of Great Britain. If due caution is exercised
Armenia is by no means in an intolerable financial posi-
tion, but even slight extravagance would dissipate its
very slender income and leave nothing for ordinary govern-
mental purposes. The margin between solvency and bank-
ruptcy is in the case of Armenia unusually narrow, and the
government should clearly realize that though technically
sound, the financial position of the State is in reality
quite precarious.
It is, of course, impossible to calculate what
revenues a state as yet unconstituted will require for
the administration of its government. But, if the
proper occasion arises, it would be a friendly act for
the United States Government to point out that extreme
conservatism should be exercised in the establishment of
governmental agencies of an expensive character. As
thirty per cent. of the estimated revenues of the central
government are already pledged to the service of the
debt assigned to Armenia, further borrowings should be
undertaken with the greatest caution, as the debt charges
are already of more than moderate weight.
The new state of Armenia will feel the need of so
many public services, public works and governmental
240
- 8 -
agencies, that the temptation will be strong to increase
expenditures beyond the bounds of due conservatism, in
the face of the fact that funds for such expenditures must
be obtained by floating loans in foreign countries. Such
procedure can scarcely eventuate in anything but trouble
and possible disaster for the new state. It must also
be recognized in candor that a distinctly socialistic
sentiment prevails, at least among the Armenians of the
Erivan Republic, and pretentious schemes for the national-
ization of mines, ports, railways, and public utilities
in general, are likely to be attempted. Financial history
is so replete with losses and bankrupties incident to
the inauguration of new public works, transportation
systems and like enterprises, that the Armenian state
should be warned against mortgaging its financial future
by undertaking injudicious enterprises for which it does
not have the requisite domestic financial backing. Noth-
ing is implied either in favor of or in opposition to
the nationalization of public utilities in countries
which have been long established, but it would be danger-
ous indeed for a financially weak state to attempt the
establishment and operation of enterprises involving
large financial outlay, the capital for which can only
be borrowed abroad at exorbitant rates.
Another danger which should be clearly pointed out
to the Armenian state is involved in granting concessions
241
- 9 -
of a permanent nature to meet temporary financial
requirements. The present state of the money market
in such that loans on the best security can only be
floated at exorbitant rates, and for a political
experiment like the state of Armenia loans would cer-
tainly be granted only at extremely usurious rates or
because those furnishing the loans secured extremely
desirable concessions. Unless the utmost care is exer-
cised, Armenia is likely to find that the natural re-
sources of the country are mortgaged permanently to
foreigners, whereas the future solvency of the state
depends on carefully conserving its all too meager
sources of potential income. It must be realized that
concession hunters will be very active and will attempt
to take the utmost advantage of the financial neces-
sities of the new state. The United States can render
signal service, both by advice and perhaps by small
advances from the United States Treasury.
W. W. Cumberland,
Assistant Foreign Trade Advisor,
Financial Expert of the Harbord
Mission.
242
M A P S
Number 1: Boundaries of Armenia, as proposed by the
London Inter-Allied Commission of February 1920. (See Appendix I, No. 2).
2: Armenian Claims (See Appendix IV). Original Claim of the Armenian National
Delegation at the Peace Conference; Reduced Claim of the Armenian Delegations,
since January, 1920; Boundary established by President Wilson's
decision.
3: Claims of the Pontic Greeks (See Appendix V, Nos. 3, 4, 5). Original Claim at Paris Peace Conference; Reduced Claim, 1920; Greek Territory in Trace and in Smyrna
District; Boundary established by President Wilson’s
decision. 4: Armenia’s Routes of Access to the Sea (See Appendix V, Nos. 2, 4, 9). Trebizond-Erzerum-Caravan Route; Tireboli-Erzerum Railway Project; Western Frontier essential to Armenia. 5: Armenia in Relation to the new Turkish Empire (See Appendix IX). Frontiers of Turkey as established by
the Treaty of Sevres and by the President Wilson’s decision;
Areas of Especial Interest as established By the Tripartite Convention of August 10, 1920, between Great Britain, France and Italy;
Existing Railways.
243
I n d i c e s
− Index of Personal Names.
− Comprehensive Index of Geographical Names.
− Index of Ethnic and Religious Groups.
− Subject Index.
245
246
Index of Personal Names
A Aharonian, Avetis (1866-1948), politician, writer, public figure and revolutionary, President of the Delegation of the Republic of Armenia at the Paris Peace Conference:
communication (Jul 22, 1920) addressed to the US President, 213; letter (Aug 20, 1920) to the US President on the boundary question, 151; map by -·- with the boundaries of the proposed Armenian State, 214-215; on the portion of the Vilayet of Kharpout, 214; signatory of the Treaty of Sèvres, 6; 202; 212; telegram (May 4, 1920) to the US Secretary of State claiming the Sandjak of Kharput, 150.
Allen, James [Sir] (1855-1942), politician and diplomat, High Commissioner for New Zealand to the United Kingdom and Representative at the League of Nations (1920-1927):
signatory of the Treaty of Sèvres, 201; 212. Anno, Lieutenant Commander:
signatory of the Report and Proposals (London, Feb 24, 1920) by the Commission for the Delimitation of the Boundaries of Armenia, 98.
B Bagratuni, Jacob [Iakov, Hakob] (1879-1943), Major-General, Chief of Armenian Military Mission to the USA:
documents by, 157; memorandum (May 22, 1920) by, 151; strategic argument by, 163.
Beatty, Richard David (1871-1936), Admiral, Earl, First Sea Lord (1919-1927):
at Supreme Council meeting (Jan 19, 1920), 96. Blankenberg, Reginald Andrew [Sir] (1876-1960), Official Secretary to High Commissioner and Acting High Commissioner for the Union of South Africa in the UK (1918-1925):
signatory of the Treaty between Principal Allied Powers and Armenia (Sèvres, Aug 10, 1920), 201; 212.
Boghos Nubar, Pasha (1851-1930), founder of AGBU (1912) [Armenian General Benevolent Union], Head of the Armenian National delegation at the Paris Peace Conference:
communication (Jul 22, 1920) signed by, 213; letter to the US President, 151; Representative of the Joint Armenian Council at Constantinople, 203; signatory of the Treaty between Principal Allied Powers and Armenia (Sèvres, Aug 10, 1920), 203; telegram (May 4, 1920) to the US Secretary of State, 150.
Bonin, Lelio Longare (1859-1933), Count, Senator, Italian Ambassador to Paris:
signatory of the Treaty between Principal Allied Powers and Armenia (Sèvres, Aug 10, 1920), 202; 212.
Burden, Chester, Lieutenant, member of the US Secretariat of the Conference at Paris:
at the meeting (Feb 4, 1919) of the Council of Ten, 177.
C Cambon, Jules-Martin (1845-1935), French Ambassador to Berlin (1907-1914), Chairman of theCouncil of Ambassadors at Paris (1920-1922):
signatory of the Treaty between Principal Allied Powers and Armenia (Sèvres, Aug 10, 1920), 202; 212.
Castoldi, Colonel, Italian member of Committee on New States and the Protection of Minorities:
signatory of the Report and Proposals (London, Feb 24, 1920) by the Commission for the Delimitation of the Boundaries of Armenia, 98.
Chardigny, Pierre (1873-1951), Colonel, Chief of the French Military Mission in the Caucasus:
signatory of the Report and Proposals (London, Feb 24, 1920) by the Commission for the Delimitation of the Boundaries of Armenia, 98.
Index of Personal Names
247
Chinda, Sutemi (1857-1929), Viscount, Japanese Ambassador to London (1916-1920):
Head of Japanese delegation [Treaty between Principal Allied Powers and Armenia (Sèvres, Aug 10, 1920)], 202.
Chrysanthos, Philippidis (1881-1941), Archbishop, Metropolitan of Trebizond (1913-1921) [later archbishop of Athens and All Greece (1938-1941)]:
member of Pontic Greek Delegation, author of a memorandum of May 2, 1919, 189.
Churchill, Winston Leonard Spencer (1874- 1965), British politician and statesman, Secretary of State for War and Aviation (1921), Secretary of State for Colonies (1921-1924), [later British prime minister 1940-1945 and 1951-1955]:
at Supreme Council meeting (Jan 19, 1920) on Allied recognition of Armenia, 96.
Clemenceau, Georges Benjamin (1841-1929), statesman and journalist, Prime Minister of France (1906-1909 and 1917-1920):
at Supreme Council meeting (Jan 19, 1920) on Allied recognition of Armenia, 96; head of French delegation at the meeting (Feb 4, 1919) of the Council of Ten, 177.
Colby, Bainbridge (1869-1950), the US Secretary of State (1920-1921):
co-signatory of the arbitral award, 68; letter (Apr 23, 1920) on recognition of the Republic of Armenia by the USA, 125; letter (Apr 24, 1920) from Johnson to -·-, on mandates and Armenian outlet to the sea via Batum, 126; letter (Apr 25, 1920) from Johnson to -·-, on the Armenian mandate and boundaries, 127; letter (Apr 26, 1920) from Johnson to -·-, on upcoming invitation to arbitrate, 129; letter (Apr 27, 1920) from Johnson to -·-, on the proposed Turkish Treaty, 132; letter (Apr 27, 1920) from Johnson with official invitation for the arbitration, 135; letter from Frazier (Athens, May 14, 1920) to -·-, on Trebizond, 180; referring the letter of Apr 27, 1920, 134; referring the letter of Mar 24, 1920, 91; referring the telegram [note] (Apr 27, 1920) of Ambassador Johnson to 8; 9; reply (Mar 24, 1920) to the French note (Mar 12, 1920), 124;
telegram to Ambassador Wallace (May 17, 1920) on President’s agreement, 144; transmission of Wilson’s positive reply (May 17, 1920) to the arbitration invitation, 144.
Constantinidès, Constantine Jason G., President of the Pan-Pontic (Pont-Euxin) Congress:
letter (Jul 10, 1920) to President Wilson, 187. Cuinet, Vital, French geographer, author of the book La Turquie d'Asie, géographie administrative, statistique, descriptive et raisonée de chaque province de l'Asie-Mineure, 4 vols., Paris, 1890-95: 159; 160-161. Cumberland, William Wilson, (1890-1955), financial expert of the American Military Mission to Armenia [1919, Harbord Mission], Assistant Foreign Trade Adviser, US State Department:
author of the report Financial Position of that Portion of the Four Vilayets Assigned to the New State of Armenia, 241.
Curzon, George Nathaniel (1859-1925), Earl, British Foreign Secretary (1919-1924):
Ambassador Johnson on meeting with, 127; at Supreme Council meeting (Jan 19, 1920), 96; conference of Ambassadors under the Chairmanship of, 129; proposed note with reference to Armenia, 135; three documents by, 130.
D Davis, Leslie A. (1876-1960), US Consul at Kharput (1914-1917):
report (Feb 9, 1918) of -·-, on the population of Kharput vilayet, 159.
Day, Clive (1871-1951), American college professor and writer on economics history, chief of the Balkan Division of the American Commission to Negotiate Peace (Paris, 1918-1919):
at the meeting of the Council of Ten, (Feb 4, 1919), 177.
Demorgny, Gustave (1869-1937), author of the book La Question Persane [et la guerre], Paris, L. Tenin, 1916: 228.
Dwight, Harrison Griswold (1875-1959), author and diplomat [Division of the Near Eastern Affairs of the State Department]:
member of the Committee upon the Arbitration of the Boundary between Turkey and Armenia, 2; author of the report The Question of Kharput, 167.
Index of Personal Names
248
E Economos, Socrates, President of the National League of the Euxine Pontus at Paris:
letter (Jul 10, 1920) to President Wilson, 187. F Fisher, Andrew (1862-1928), politician, Prime Minister of Australia (1908-1909, 1910-1913, 1914-1915), High Commissioner for Australia in the United Kingdom (1916-1921):
signatory of the Treaty of Sèvres, 201, 212. Foch, Ferdinand (1851-1929), French Marshal, Supreme Commander of the Allied armies (1918):
at Supreme Council meeting (Jan 19, 1920), 96; supplies consideration, 97.
Francois-Marsal, Frédéric (1874-1958), politician, French Minister of Finance (1920-1921):
signatory of the Treaty of Sèvres, 202; 211. Frazier, Arthur Hugh (1868-1963), First Secretary (later Counsellor) of US Embassy in France, Diplomatic Liaison Officer with Supreme War Council:
member of the US delegation at Paris, 177; telegram (May 14, 1920) to Colby, Venzelos’ statement on Trebizond, 180.
G Galli, Carlo, Italian Minister in Belgrade, Consul:
Italian member of the Commission for the Delimitation of the Boundaries of Armenia, 98; signatory of the Treaty between Principal Allied Powers and Armenia (Sèvres, Aug 10, 1920), 202.
Gerard, James Watson III (1867-1951), US Ambassador to Berlin (1913-1917), Chairman of the American Committee for the Independence of Armenia (1919-1933):
memorandum (May 5, 1920) to Secretary of State claiming for Armenia all territories east of the Euphrates river, 152.
Goremykine [Goremykin], Ivan Logginovitch (1839-1917), Prime Minister of Russia (1906, 1914-1916):
speech (Feb 9, 1916) by -·-, as reference of Turkish-Persian boundary status, 228.
Gribben W. H., Colonel, British member of the Commission for the Delimitation of the Boundaries of Armenia: 98.
H Haadi [Hadi] Pasha (1861-1932), General, Chief of Turkish General Staff, in 1919 and in 1920, Senator, Minister of Education in July-October of 1920:
signatory to the Treaty of Sèvres, 6. Harbord, James Guthrie (1866-1947), General, Head of American Military Mission to Armenia:
advice and criticism of 12; apprehension expressed by, 74; Armenian note (Sep 4, 1919) handed to, 218; reports from the mission of, 10; request to express opinion on demilitarization, 27.
Harrison, Leland B. (1893-1951), Counsellor of the US Embassy at Paris, diplomatic secretary of the American Commission to Negotiate Peace:
present at the meeting (Feb 4, 1919), 177; letter (Aug 20, 1920) signed for the ambassador, 215.
Haskell, William Nafew (1878-1952), Colonel, Al-lied High Commissioner for Armenia and Caucasus:
reports presented by, 223; special reports of the staff of, 10; statement of (Jun 24, 1920), 20.
Hertslet, Sir Edward (1824-1902), British librarian and archivist, author of the book The Map of Europe by Treaty, v. I-IV, London 1875-1891, The Map of Africa by Treaty, v. I-II, London, 1894:
map on Turco-Persian frontier, 226. Hirtzel, Sir Arthur (1870-1937), British Assistant Under-Secretary of State for India:
signatory of the Treaty of Sèvres, 201; 212. Huber R., Major, Commissioner of Railways in Asia Minor, French author of the map:
Empire Ottoman, Division administrative, Scale 1:1,500,000, dressé d’après le Salnamé de 1899/1317, par R. Huber [trans. Ottoman Empire, Administrative Division, compiled from the Salnamé (Yearbook) of 1899/1317 by R. Huber, Constantinople, 1906, 4 sheets], 146.
I Isaac, Auge Paul-Louis (1849-1937), Minister of Commerce and Industry of France (1920-1921):
Signatory of the Treaty of Sèvres, 202. J Johnson, Robert Underwood (1853-1937), writer, US Ambassador to Rome (1920-1921):
Index of Personal Names
249
note on arbitration to Colby (Apr 27, 1920), 9; Telegram(s) to Colby from San Remo (Apr 24-27, 1920), 8; 126-129; 132; 134-135.
Jusserand, Jean Adrien Antoine Jules (1855- 1932), author and diplomat, French Ambassador to Washington (1902-1925):
communication of the Secretary of State to (Mar 24 1920), 9; letter (Mar 24, 1920)from Secretary of State B. Colby to, 118; letter (Mar 12, 1920) to F. Polk, Acting Secretary of State, 117; note on Armenian outlet via the free port of Batum, 5; submission to the Secretary of State of the USA the tentative decisions regarding the Turkish Treaty (Mar 12, 1920), 4.
K Kammerer M., member of Committee on New States and the Protection of Minorities:
French member of the Commission for the Delimitation of the Boundaries of Armenia, 98.
Kemal, Mustapha [Ataturk] (1881-1938), leader of Turkish Nationalist movement (1919-1923), Ghazi (1921), (fighter for the faith against the infidel), [later President of Turkish Republic, 1923-1938]:
leader of the Milli Teshkilat (Organization of the Nation), 232; Nationalist Turkish forces of, 80; Turkish Nationalist movement led by, 83; Nationalist Turkish Party headed by, 84.
Khanzadian, Zatik (1886-1980), cartographer, technical adviser of the Armenian delegation at Paris:
Geographic appendix of, 157. Kuropatkin, Aleksei Nikolaevich (1848-1904), General, Russian War Minister (1889-1904), Governor-General of the Turkestan Military district (1916-1917):
Bolshevist forces (Aug 1920) in Turkestan, 229. L Lansing, Robert (1864-1928), US Secretary of State (1915-1920):
at the meeting of the Council of Ten, (Feb 4, 1919), 177; telegram from Ambassador Wallace on Allied recognition of Armenia, 96.
Levassieur [Levasseur], Victor, 19th century
French cartographer and engraver: map by, 217.
Lloyd George, David (1863-1945), Earl, Prime Minister of Great Britain (1916-1922):
at the meeting (Feb 4, 1919), 177; disagreement with proposals, 129; enquiry about Cilicia, 178; request for a quick reply, 127; suggestion on boundaries of Armenia, 126.
М Magie, David (1877-...), member of the staff of the American Commission to Negotiate Peace in 1919:
figures for the Sandjak of Arghana presented by, 161.
Marcel Leart [Grigor Zohrab] (1861-1915), Armenian writer, journalist, lawyer and political figure, member of Ottoman Parliament (1908-1915):
author of the book La Question Armenienne, Paris, 1913: book of reference, 160.
Martin, Lawrence (1880-1955), Major [General Staff Corps, U.S. Army], Geographer of the Harbord Mission:
author of the report Maps Used in Determining Actual Boundaries of the Four Vilayets and in Drawing the Frontiers of Armenia, 148; member of the Committee upon the Arbitration of the Boundary between Turkey and Armenia, 2; opinion on demilitarization, 36; request to express opinion on demilitarization, 27.
Mason C.H., Major, US General Staff Corps: opinion on demilitarization, 31; request to express opinion on demilitarization, 27.
Matsui, Keishirō (1868-1946), Japanese Ambassador to Paris:
signatory of the Treaty of Sèvres, 202; 212. Mears, Eliot Grinnell (1889-1946), member of the American mission to Armenia (1919), Commercial attaché to American High Commissioner in Turkey (1919-1920):
author of the report Economic Position of Ports in the Trebizond vilayet, 173.
Mehmet VI [Vahideddin] (1861-1926), the 36th and last Ottoman Sultan (1918-1922):
delegation from, 114. Millerand, Alexandre (1859-1943), Prime Minister of France and Minister for Foreign Affairs, (20 Jan – 23 Sep 1920), President of France (1920-1924): 127;
202; 212.
Index of Personal Names
250
N Nitti, Francesco Saverio Vincenzo de Paola (1868-1953), Prime Minister of Italy (1919-1920):
Chairman of the Supreme Council, 127; signatory of a note (Apr 27, 1920) with reference to Armenia, 132; 135; 143.
O Orlando, Vittorio Emanuele (1860-1952), lawyer, Prime Minister of Italy (1917-1919), head of the Italian delegation at the Paris Peace Conference:
at the meeting of the Council of Ten, (Feb 4, 1919), 177.
Oswald, Felix Leopold (1845-1906), British geologist:
author of the book A Treatise on the Geology of Armenia, 1906, London, 220.
P Paleologue, Georges Maurice (1859-1944), author and diplomat, French Ambassador to Moscow, (1914-1917), Secretary-General of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of France (1917-1921):
signatory to the Treaty of Sèvres, 202; 212. Pasdermadjian, Garegin [Armen Garo], (1872- 1923), diplomat, public figure and revolutionary, member of Ottoman Parliament (1908-1912):
Diplomatic Representative of the Armenian Republic, 125; 150; on population in the Kharput Province, 155.
Perley, Sir George Halsey (1857-1938), Canadian High Commissioner to the UK (1914-1922):
signatory of the Treaty of Sèvres, 201; 212. Polk, Frank Lyon (1871-1943), Head of the American Commission to Negotiate Peace, US Under secretary of State (1919-1920), Acting Secretary of State (14 Feb – 12 Mar 1920):
letter (Mar 12, 1920) from the French Ambassador to, 113.
R Rechad Haliss [Halis] Bey (1883-1944), Turkish Envoy Extraordinary and Minister Plenipotentiary at Berne:
signatory of the Treaty of Sèvres, 6. Riggs, Ernest Wilson (1881-1952), Reverend, President, Euphrates College (1910-1921), Child
Welfare Director, Near East Relief (1920-1921): author of Observations Regarding the Boundaries of Armenia, 152.
Riza Tevfik Bey [Bölükbaşı] (1869-1949), philosopher and poet, Senator, two term Head of the Ottoman legislative body – Council of State [Şûra-yı Devlet] (1919-1920):
signatory of the Treaty of Sèvres, 6. S Semenoff [Semyonov], Grigory Mikhailovich (1890-1946), Supreme Ruler of Siberia (Jan 4 – Nov 19, 1920), Lieutenant-General, Ataman of the Siberian Cossacks:
troops of, 230. Suleyman [the Magnificent] (1520-1566), Sultan of the Ottoman Empire:
in the time of, 216. T Tigranes [II] the Great (140-55 B.C.), king of Armenia (95-55 B.C.):
Diarbekir, the seat of, 154. Trotzky, Leon [Bronstein, Lev Davidovich] (1879- 1940), Bolshevik revolutionary and Marxist theorist:
communiqué from, 81. Tseretelli [Tsereteli], Irakli [Kaki] Georgievich (1881-1959), one of the leaders of Georgian Menshevik Party, Georgian representative at Paris Peace conference: 96. V Vehib Pasha [Mehmet Vehib Kaçı], (1877- 1940), General, commander of Turkish Third Army during WWI:
Turkish authorities in Trebizond represented by, 187.
Vansittart, Robert Gilbert (1881-1957), first secretary at the Paris Peace Conference (1919- 1920), principal private secretary to Lord Curzon (1920-1924) and to successive prime ministers (1928-1930), permanent under secretary at the Foreign Office (1930-1938):
British member of the Commission for the delimitation of the boundaries of Armenia, 98.
Venizelos, Eleftherios Kiriakou (1864-1936), Prime Minister of Greece (1910-1915, 1917-1920, 1924, 1928-1932, 1933), Head of Greek
Index of Personal Names
251
delegation at Paris: asked by Clemenceau to explain Greek territorial claims, 177; conditions for the original declaration of, 25-26; denied Greece ambition, 181; explanations of the territorial claims, 189; head of the Greek delegation, 177; on behalf of the Greeks, 122; on Trebizond and Armenian State, 177-178; opinion on Armenia and Pontus, 180; presumed opinion on Trebizond Vilayet, 24; statement on Trebizond (Feb 4, 1919), 23; 93; statement on Trebizond (May 13, 1920), 23; 93.
Villiers [Stanley], Edward George (1865-1948), Earl, British Ambassador to Paris (1918-1920):
signatory of the Treaty between Principal Allied Powers and Armenia (Sèvres, Aug 10, 1920), 201.
W Wallace, Hugh Campbell (1863-1931), US Ambassador to Paris (1919-1921):
letter (Jan 19, 1920) to Lansing on Allied recognition of Armenia, 96; letter (May 17, 1920) from Colby expressing President Wilson’s consent to delimit the southern and western frontiers of Armenia, 144.
Westermann, William Linn (1873-1954), American papyrologist and historian, professor at the universities of Missouri (1902-1906), Minnesota (1906-1908), Wisconsin (1908-1920), Cornell (1920-1923), and Columbia (1923-1948), Chief of the Division of Western Asia, American Commission to Negotiate Peace (1918-1920):
member of the Committee upon the Arbitration of the Boundary between Turkey and Armenia, 2; at the meeting of the Council of Ten (Feb 4, 1919), 177.
Wilson, Sir Henry Hughes (1864-1922), Baronet, Field Marshal, military advisor to the British Prime Minister:
at Supreme Council meeting (Jan 19, 1920), 96; invitation to consider supplies and means, 97.
Wilson, Thomas Woodrow (1856-1924), educator, political reformer, the 28th president of the USA
(1913-1921), Nobel Peace Prize winner (1919): acceptance (May 17, 1920) of the invitation to arbitrate, 165; acceptance to delimit, 144; agreement with the attitude of, 21; Aharonian’s letter (Aug 20, 1920) to, 215; appeal to, 153; Arbitral Decision of, 40; arbitrating agent, 8; area possibly be assigned to Armenia by, 15; area to be assigned to Armenian by, 17; Armenia, request to, 25; before treaty acceptance, 191; competence to arbitrate, 9; Curzon’s proposed note to, 135; decision by, 52; decision on Armenia, 24; decision on the boundary established by, 227; decision on Turkish-Armenian boundary, 85; 95; decision, independently of, 192; direction of, 125; eastern terminus established by, 226; frontiers established by, 145; honourable duty by, 138; humane consideration of the question, 178; in the speeches of, 136; invitation (Apr 26, 1920) and acceptance (May 17, 1920) to settle the boundary question, 6; 9; 91; 127; 130-131; 138; 149; 165; letter (Jul 10, 1920) to, 182; letter from Boghos Nubar Pasha, 151; limit to act, 167; limitation of power, 14; making boundary decision, 9; map on Turkish-Armenian Boundary, October 1920, 3; maps for, 217; member of the US delegation, 177; memorandum to, 188; memorial to the President, 152; note of President on access to the Black Sea for Armenia, 181; petition of the Armenian delegation to, 93; 213; petition of the Pontic Greeks to, 93; 190; plea for a larger Armenia was uphold by, 137; possible separation of Pontic Greeks, 23; reply to an enquiry by, 177;
Index of Personal Names
252
report, insertion of a clause in, 74; request for the Arbitral decision of, 3; request from Armenian delegation, 222; request on outlet to the sea, 224; request to resident regarding Kharput, 13; restriction on authorization, 37; signatory of the arbitral award (Nov 22, 1920), 50; 68; speeches, aim of free Armenia in, 136; State Department on behalf of, 118; Supreme Council decision (Apr 26, 1920) to,
126; terms of reference, 153; text of the decision, 224; unconditional agreement to act, 166; Venizelos hope with, 180.
Wrangel, Pyotr Nikolayevich (1878-1928), Baron, General, commander of White Army in Southern Russia:
Bolshevist regime against, 81; troops, forces opposed to Bolshevist forces, 230.
253
254
Comprehensive Index of Geographical Names*
A Adana (Cilicia):
attribution to Armenia, 152; inclusion of the vilayet of -·- in Armenia (according to Venizelos), 178; within the original Armenian claims, 149.
Adrianople: part of Bulgaria, city and the surrounding territory, 121; receipts per square kilometer for the vilayet of, 234; special guarantees granted to Ottomans at, 115.
Aegean Sea: construction of a canal emptying at Salonica on the, 168.
Afghanistan: British diplomacy with relation to, 78. Agha Keui, village of [point of reference]: 60. Aghri Dagh (see also Ararat) [point of reference]:
northwards to, 112. Aidin (see also Smyrna):
administration by the Greeks, Smyrna and a zone not including, 116; receipts per square kilometer for the vilayet of, 234.
Aintab: frontier of Turkey in Asia, line running north of, 114.
Ala Verdi: district of the province of Erivan, 70. Alamlik, village of [point of reference]: 63. Alexandretta:
Black sea, distance from, 197; Gulf of, 197; port of, 196.
Alexandropol: -·- Kars division of the Russian railway system, 76; railway branch from, 75; railway connection with, 75.
* The anglicized spelling of certain names is questionable. Nevertheless the spelling is kept as in the original text.
Almali, mountains and village [point of reference]:
proposed line of the Western boundaries of Armenia, as far as, 107; road between, 107.
Amanus Republic (Cilicia): proclamation of, 231. Amasia: line of communication by, 162. America (see also American Board of Commissioners for Foreign Missions; American Commission to Negotiate Peace; American Committee for the Independence of Armenia; American Embassy, American Government; American Peace Delegation; American Secretary of State; American Trade Commissioner; Armenia America Society):
Allied appeal to -·- to assume the mandate, 131; concern expressed by -·- with regard to Armenian independence, 134; in case -·- refuses the Armenian mandate, 127; not for the Supreme Council to point out to, 142; not party to the Turkish Treaty, 132; number of Armenian repatriates from Persia, Bulgaria or, 99; numerous private bodies in -·-, willing to support Armenia, 142; out of the question of regional gendarmerie, 30; outcry among the Armenians and their friends in, 130; part in drawing up the instrument of reconstruction of Turkey, 133; questions that may be asked in -·-, 137; representatives in -·- of the Armenian Republic, 153; volunteers from -·-, 141.
America, United States of: not at war with Turkey, 118; represented at the meeting (February 4, 1919) by President Wilson, 177.
Comprehensive Index of Geographical Names
255
Angora: communications from the west, 232. Ara, village of [point of reference]: 64. Arabia: relinquishment by Turkey of her rights to
Mesopotamia, -·-, Palestine, Syria, and the Islands, 116, 122.
Ararat (Mount) (see also Aghri Dagh): district of Maku, just East of, 82; former Russo-Persian frontier as far as, 108; from the Persian border south of -·- to the Black Sea, 148; frontier from Fac on the Persian Gulf to, 226; [point of reference] (Aghri Dagh) northwards to, 112; territories around, 178.
Aras, river: below Julfa, 108. Araz, village of [point of reference]: 54. Ardahan:
Kars -·- Batum road, 102; present road via Artvin and, 103.
Ardasa (Ardassa): Hinterland between Tereboli, -·- and Surmench, 104; road to [from], 222.
Ardushan [point of reference]: 107. Ardushin [point of reference]:
east of, 110; village of, 58.
Arghana, Sandjak of: a portion of, 150; a part of, 151; 161.
Argheny (Arghana): rich copper mines of, 157. Armenia: (see also Armenian(s); Armenian border(s); Armenian delegation(s); Armenian Government, Armenian Plateau; Armenian Population; Armenian Republic; Armenian State, Armenian territory; Eastern Armenia; Greater Armenia; Russian Armenia; Turkish Armenia, etc.): Armenia: A
access for -·- through Trebizond, 180; access to coastal area from the tableland of -·- proper, 192; access to sea indispensable for existence of, 122; access to the Black Sea for -·- in a note of President Wilson, 181; access to the sea, 5; acquirement of the portions of the four vilayets, 235;
active and sincere sympathy for, 142; adoption of natural barrier between Kurdistan and, 17; advise that Daghestan and -·- be accorded de facto recognition, 96; agreement by -·- to enable Moslems in the questions of family law, 206; agreement by Turkey and -·- for the arbitration, 52; agreement not to indicate in the Turkish Treaty the frontier with, 130; Aharonian’s attention call to the map of, 213; aim of a free -·- in the speeches of Mr. Wilson, 136; Allied recognition (January 19, 1920) of, 91; 96; American capitalists in the railroad construction in, 174; American note (March 24, 1920) on access to the sea, 21; American recognition (April 23, 1920), of, 91; annual charge for which -·- becomes responsible, 234; annual charges for the service of Turkish debt for, 237; any condition providing for -·-’s access to the sea, 139; any stipulations which may be prescribed as to access for, 41; applying by -·- her man power to her own defense, 141; appointment by -·- diplomatic representatives, 208; apportionment of the Turkish debt to, 235; arbitration of the boundary between Turkey and, 90; area and confines of the new, 137; area which President Wilson might ssign to, 17; argument against the inclusion of Kharput within the boundaries, 165; arguments against including Kharput within the boundaries of, 159; arguments in favor of Including Kharput within the boundaries of, 153; Armenian petition on frontiers of, 215; arrangement for an outlet for -·- by way of Lazistan, 5; arrangement providing for -·- ‘s access to the sea, 46;
Comprehensive Index of Geographical Names
256
as a new political entity, 46; as a sovereign State recognized by Principal Allied Powers, 200; as an item in agenda, 126, 127; as an obstacle in the pathway of the Soviet Government, 229; as natural geographic barrier for, 44; as signatory of the Minority Treaty (August 10, 1920, Sevres), 200; as signatory of the Treaty of Peace was signed at Sèvres, 51; assigning the harbor of Trebizond and the valley of the Karshut Su to, 67; assignment of any portion of the territory of Trebizond Vilayet to, 21; assignment of the Chorokh valley to, 25; assurance by -·- for the protection of the interests of minorities, 103; at liberty to terminate the obligations, 210; Attribution to -·- the whole of four provinces, 215; attribution to -·- of a considerable Black Sea littoral, 197; attribution to -·- the eastern part of the Vilayet of Trebizond, 191; autonomous Kurdistan, lying south, 71; average contribution of, 237; Avetis Aharonian on behalf of (Minority Treaty), 202.
Armenia: B barren mountainous country without provinces of Kharput, Sivas, Diarbekir and Cilicia, 157; Batum as free port of TransCaucasia, of -·-, and of the eastern portion of Lazistan, 103; Batum provision of the treaty as necessary arrangement for northern, 20; border disputes between -·- and Georgia, 82; boundaries of -·- and Turkey unaffected until President Wilson’s decision, 139; boundaries of -·-, as proposed by the London Inter-Allied, Commission, February 1920 (map), 95; 242; boundary between -·- and the free State of Batum, 102; British policy in relation to, 78;
Armenia: C character of the country and the altitude of, 163; coast from Trebizond to a Batum should be
given to, 214; Commission for the Delimitation of the Boundaries of, 99; communication relative to the arbitration of the western frontier of, 213; comparative standards the debt of, 238; compelled to rely on her own resources, 141; complete commercial outlet (Batum) for, 20; concentration by -·- of her forces on her new frontiers, 140; confines of -·- at south and west, 13; consent by -·- for the rights of each Member of the Council, 207; consent by -·- regarding disputes, 207; consequences of incorporation of the district of Gumush Khaneh with, 102; consideration the question of granting Trebizond to, 5; considerations not strictly concerned with the defence of, 163; Council of the League of Nations interested in -·-’s destiny, 135; creation of a Free State of Batum in order to give -·- an outlet, 103; creation of an autonomous State of Lazistan under the nominal suzerainty of, 104; Curzon’s proposed note to the President with reference to, 135.
Armenia: D decision respecting the frontier between Turkey and, 51; delimitation of the boundaries of, 98; delimitation the southern and western boundaries of, 6; demilitarization of Turkish territory adjacent to the frontier of, 67; demilitarized zones as safeguards for the security of, 165; despatch of American wheat to, 223; determination of the frontiers of Turkey and, 41; direct communication between the interior of -·- and the sea, 224; direct contact of -·- with Free State of Batum, 103; district assigned to -·- contained 7.7% of the total population, 236;
Comprehensive Index of Geographical Names
257
dividing equably between -·- and Turkey the summit of the pass, 63.
Armenia: E eastern boundary of, 7; eastern frontier of -·- with the Tartar State of Azerbaijan, 110; economic consequences if Kharput added to, 163; economically insufficient without Districts of Erzerum, Trebizond and Kharput, 156; elimination of the coastal region of Kerasun and Ordu from, 26; empowerment of President to formulate arrangements for access of -·- to the sea, 9; encouragement for the Armenians of, 197; entire governmental income of the territory to be given, 238; equality of all inhabitants of, 203; especially well supplied with copper, 70; essential to include in -·- Taurus Mountains, 158; establishment of free states in Syria, Palestine, Mesopotamia, 185; estimated per capita contributions in the vilayets ceded to, 87; estimates of the population of the territory acquired by, 237; ethnographic grounds weighed heavily the future of, 46; evacuation Turkish troops from the formerly Turkish zone allotted to, 105; exclusion of Hakkiari and Sairt sandjaks from, 18; exempted from the necessity of maintaining special assignments of revenues, 233; extent of territory to be allotted to, 99; external political factors for the fate of, 77.
Armenia: F financial outlook of, 89; financial position of the portion assigned to, 94; for the future welfare of, 84; formal promise that Georgia would grant to -·- and Azerbaijan free transit to and free use of the port of Batum, 196; four Turkish vilayets assignable to, 77; free access to Sea by Batum, for Georgia, Azerbaijan, Persia, and 195; free access to the Black Sea by the port of Trebizond, 194;
freedom of access for -·- to the port of Batum, 20; freedom of religion for all inhabitants of, 203; frontier between Georgia and, 103; frontier between Turkey and -·- in the Vilayets of Erzerum, Trebizond, Van, and Bitlis, 53; frontier line desired by -·- would start at a point west of Off, 220; frontiers of Armenia, 108.
Armenia: G gendarmerie in the vilayets of Turkey contiguous to the frontiers of, 49; general discussion of -·-’s access to the sea, 93; 191; general estimate of the resources available for, 88; genuine interest of the US Government for, 121; geographical unity of -·- in the time of Suleyman, 216; giving -·- means of communication between the interior and the sea, 219; granting -·- territory for the necessities of the present and of the future, 134.
Armenia: H Harbord Mission to -·- and Transcaucasia, 173; historical frontier of, 13; humanitarian sympathy of the British public and government for, 78.
Armenia: I idea of a separate, 29; if it had been possible to include Kharput in, 197; immediate neighbors of, 80; impossibility to assign any portion of the Vilayet of Mamuret-ul-Aziz to, 14; impossible for -·- to prosper without geographical unity, 222; in a very unfavorable situation, 101; in case no mandatory power is assigned to, 89; in extreme anxiety, 143; in instant need of military forces and financial resources, 140; in line with policy an independent state of, 79; inadvisable to add to -·- a region containing Turks and Kurds, 162; inclusion in -·- as little as possible of territory with predominantly Turkish in population, 26; inclusion in -·- of all the territories around Mount Ararat, 178;
Comprehensive Index of Geographical Names
258
inclusion in -·- the city and plain of Kharput, 151; inclusion of Karshut valley in, 47; inclusion of the rich silver mine of Keban-Maden in, 156; inclusion of the Zephyr Bay indentation in, 47; independence of, 115; independent Pontian State situated on the confines of, 186; inserting in the Treaty an article on, 139; invitation to America settle the boundaries between Turkey and, 127; invitation to the President to arbitrate the frontiers of, 9; invitation to US President to fix the frontier between Turkey and, 191; irreparable injury to the future of the land of, 47.
Armenia: J Johnson’s cable (25 April, 1920) regarding, 144.
Armenia: K Kars-Ardahan-Batum road shall belong to, 102; Kharput as econo-mically necessary to, 14; Kharput as economically the richest region of, 156; Kharput as the point whence diverge the main land routs into, 164.
Armenia: L Lazes and the other minorities in, 104; leaving to -·- roads leading to the villages of Metkut and Kirmana, 64; leaving to -·- the village of Chopans, 56; leaving to -·- the village of Deshtumi, 56; leaving to -·- the village of Dinek, 60; leaving to -·- the village of Enbu, 56; leaving to -·- the village of Erkghan, 63; leaving to -·- the village of Eyreti, 54; leaving to -·- the village of Heyshtirem, 58; leaving to -·- the village of Kehirvanik, 58; leaving to -·- the village of Kluhuran, 59; leaving to -·- the village of Koja Arbler, 63; leaving to -·- the villages of Halkit, Sinanli, Kiliktin, and Kirtanos, 64; leaving to -·- the villages of Kachet, Sinpass, and Ozim, 55; leaving to -·- the villages of Kumistan, Lichinak, and Elmaly, 59; leaving to -·- the villages of Shorakh and Ferhadin, 61;
leaving to -·- villages within the drainage basins of the Yaghaj Dere (Espiya Dera) and the Venasit Dere (Keshab Dere), 65; loan not sufficient to meet the necessities of, 142.
Armenia: M map showing approximate boundaries between -·- , Georgia and Azerbaijan, 106; map, boundaries of -·- on the territory that was Turkish in 1914, 106; maps tracing on the spot the portion of the frontiers of, 66; maps used in drawing the frontier of, 92; maps used in drawing the frontiers of, 145; margin between solvency and bankruptcy in the case of, 239; memorandum (May 5, 1920) from J. Gerard claiming for -·- “all territories east of the Euphrates River”, 152; military importance of -·- to the world, 31; military situation with relation to Armenia, 94; military-strategic strength of the frontier of, 11; mineral wealth of, 156; mineralogical map of, 218; mountainous plateau of, 86; mouth of the Chorok within the frontiers of, 223; Murad River opens the way to, 158; mutual agreement between -·- and Turkey on transit, 173.
Armenia: N natural desire to establish a bridge between -·- proper and -·- irredenta, 163; natural resources of, 241; necessity for ensuring -·- an outlet to the sea, 101; necessity of further provision for access for -·- to the sea, 67; no changes in the clauses relating to, 166; no claim by -·- to any portion of the Trebizond Vilayet, 18; northern and eastern frontiers of, 139; north-western frontier of -·- as it may be determined by the Principal Allied and Associated Powers, 112; not in an intolerable financial position, 239; not unduly extending the boundary of, 100; note to the US to arbitrate the question of the boundaries between -·- and Turkey, 6; note to the US to assume a mandate over, 5;
Comprehensive Index of Geographical Names
259
notwithstanding the desire of the Commission to give Trebizond to, 101.
Armenia: O obligation of -·- to abstain from, 208; one delegate of -·- for the Com-mission, 195; one railway within the area which will be, 75; other ports (Constantinople, Smyrna, Alexandretta, Haifa and Basra), which will be free to, 196; outlet for -·- via Trebizond and Tireboli, 24.
Armenia: P per capita debt and per capita revenue (1920) of, 238; petition the President to include the Kharput area in, 151; Petition to US President to fix the frontiers of, 215; plea for a larger -·- upheld by President Wilson, 137; point at which the new frontier between -·- and Turkey begins, 225; political relations between -·- and other states, 1910-1929, 1; Pontus and -·- to be placed under the jurisdiction of mandatories, 180; population of the district assigned to, 236; population of the new -·- about equally divided between Moslem and Christian elements, 42; portion of the Vilayet of Kharpout claimed by, 214; portions of the vilayets which are to be assigned to, 235; possibility for the granting the Trebizond Vilayet entirety to, 45; possibility of incorporating the mining district of Gumush Khaneh with, 101; practicable communications between the interior of -·- and the Black Sea, 222; precise western and southern frontiers of, 138; precondition for the existence of the projected, 164; predominantly Kurdish or Turkish districts not to be assigned to, 43; Premier Venizelos’ poison on Trebizond and, 26; President’s decision to provide -·- with access to the sea, 192; presumably a member of the League of Nations, 195;
proposed line of the Western boundaries of, 107; protection of -·- by League of Nations, 106; providing -·- with an access to the sea, 24; province of Erzerum, was called by Turks Ermenistan or, 217; province of Trebizond -·- as part of, 180; provinces under French control may be saved for, 164; question of the boundary between Turkey and, 51; question of the frontier to be fixed between Turkey and, 52, 165; question of the outlet for -·- at Trebizond and Tireboli, 23.
Armenia: R recognition of de facto government of, 5; recommendations (February 24, 1920) upon the boundaries to between Turkey and, 4; rejection by the US Senate (June 1, 1920) the mandate over, 6; relation of -·- to the new Turkish Empire (map), 95; 242; request to include the city of Kharput and the district about it in, 13; request to Washington in the matter of, 131; return of Armenian refugees into independent, 73; revenues in the district assigned to, 237; revenues of the district to be assigned to, 236; revenues of those portions of vilayets, which are ceded to, 235; revenues which may apply to the Vilayets awarded to, 233; right for -·- to the free use of the road from Erzerum and Baiburt to Trebizond, 104; routes of -·- of access to the sea (map), 95; 242; routes within the confines of, 164; rugged natural barrier as boundary line of, 43; Russian Revolution as opportunity for the independence of, 78; Russian willingness (June 1920) to recognize the independence of, 229.
Armenia: S securing for -·- an outlet upon the Black Sea in three ways, 19; service of the debt assigned to, 239; sobering effect upon Georgia and, 81; some portion of provinces of Erivan and Kars will, presumably, not go, 71;
Comprehensive Index of Geographical Names
260
southwestern frontier of -·- exposed to the Turkish menace, 158; status of the old boundary between Turkey and Persia and, 94, 225; stipulation with regard to access for -·- to the sea, 191; stipulations which may be prescribed as to access for -·- to the sea, 52; story of what bas been happening with regard to, 129; strategic argument to include Kharput to, 163; strategic position of, 164; suggestion for the attribution various localities in the Vilayets of Sivas, Diarbekir and Adana to, 152; suggestion of the friends of -·- on port Ayas, 196; suitable outlet to the Sea for, 224; superior officers of the gendarmerie in the vilayets contiguous to, 38; supplying -·- with material necessary for the creation of an army, 105; Supreme Council decision to request President Wilson to assume a mandate over, 139.
Armenia: T tariffs between -·- and any Allied Power, 210; tariffs for transit traffic across, 210; Taurus Mountains encompass -·- in the neighborhood of Kharput, 158; the best interests of, 15; transfer of the territory of Erzerum, Trebizond, Van and Bitlis to, 8; transportation facilities of, 76; Treaty of Sèvres also grants -·- access to the sea through the port of Batum, 195; Trebizond as a matter of an economic outlet for, 22; Trebizond as an integral part of Armenia, 47; Trebizond as the terminus of the trade route across, 122; Turkey,-·-, and the Principal Allied Powers, 166.
Armenia: U undertaking of -·- according article 2 and 4 (Minority Treaty), 203; undertaking of -·- for the reciprocal and voluntary emigration, 204; Undertaking of -·- to accord freedom of transit to Allied State, 209;
undertaking of -·- to assure full and complete protection of life and liberty, 203; undertaking of -·- to extend to all the Allied Powers privileges in Customs matters, 209; undertaking of -·- to provide the public educational system for non-Armenians, 205; undertaking of -·- to treat on the same footing vessels of all nations, 209; unfortunate historic and geographic situation of, 77; US loan might suffice to put -·- upon her feet, 142; US willingness to be of service to, 141.
Armenia: V valley of the Chorok for the economic future of, 222; Van, Bitlis, Mush,the province of Erzerum, and Lazistan, were to be added to, 129; Venizelos’ opinion on -·- to be large as practicable, 180; Venizelos’ opinion on inclusion in -·- six Armenian vilayets, together with Russian Armenia and the vilayets of Trebizond and Adana, 178;
Armenia: W western and southern frontiers of, 219; western frontier essential to, 95.
Armenia, [Central] Plateau of: Ancient Armenia Major and, scientifically, 219; assuring the defence of, 158; Bay of Rizeh as the only site for maritime debouché for, 223; Erzerum as the central and most essential point of, 157; indivisible portion of, 14; Kharput as geographically a part of, 157; 164; Kharput as the westward buttress of, 163; Pontic Chain as the coast-chain of, 220; Sandjak of Kharput as the gateway to, 158; territories which constitute a perfect geographical unity known as, 217; traffic between -·- and the Mediterranean Sea, 198; Trebizond road enters the heart of, 222.
Armenia, Greater (Armenia Major): boundaries of Erzerum province identical with the ancient delimitations of, 217;
Comprehensive Index of Geographical Names
261
disturbing dream of, 197; Erzerum province represents Ancient, 219; Euphrates as the line between -·- and Little Armenia, 218; exertion in the USA to save what will be possible of, 149; Kharput as historical part of, 154.
Armenia, Kingdom of: before becoming under the Byzantine Empire, 221.
Armenia, Little: Euphrates as the historical line of demarcation between Greater and, 218.
Armenia, Republic of [the], (Armenian Republic):
appeal to Wilson to include Diarbekir within the boundaries of the New, 153; Armenian population within the boundaries of, 155; citizenship of, 42; deprived of an outlet to the sea, 223; Dr. G. Pasdermadjian, Representative of, 125; economic need for the Province of Diarbekir, 157; immediate financial outlook of, 3; 87; laying firmly the foundation of the new, 50; Moslem population not hostile to the creation of, 27; President of the Delegation of, 150; President of the Delegation of, 6; protection of citizens of, 27; recognition (January 19, 1920) of independence of the de facto government of, 4; report by representatives in America of, 153; rough estimation of the size of the future, 69; to be guaranteed an outlet to the Black Sea, 5; US recognition (April 23, 1920) of the de facto Government of, 125; Vilayet of Trebizond possible voluntary federalization with, 214; well supplied with copper, 70.
Armenia, Russian (Eastern Armenia): adding to -·- parts of the provinces of Van, Bitlis, Erzerum and Trebizond, 138; Armenians (1,200, 000) in, 100; boundaries between -·- and Georgians and Azerbaidjan Tartars, 7; boundary negotiations of Georgians with, 19; conditions of life existing in, 74; creation of the free port of Batum in Georgia
for, 19; part of the provinces to be added to, 9; question of the northern borders of, 70; refugees from Turkish Armenia in, 99; small but well-trained force ready to advance from, 85; valley of the Chorok constitutes the sole route providing access to the interior of, 223; valley of the Chorok, the main artery of, 222; Venizelos’ opinion on inclusion in Armenia six Armenian vilayets, together with -·- and the vilayets of Trebizond and Adana, 178.
Armenia, State of, [the] Armenian state: amount of the Ottoman Public Debt to be assumed by, 88; Appendix. Area, population and economic character of the New, 3; 69; assignment possible maximal territory to the new, 15; assuming 5.4% of the Turkish debt to the new, 237; average revenues of the territory which will be assigned to, 87; boundary between -·- and Georgia and Azerbaijan, 102; boundary between -·- and Persia, 7; chances of the successful establishment of, 83; creation of an -·- including territory formerly Turkish, 105; danger to -·- in granting concessions, 240; de facto recognition of, 96; demilitarization of adjacent Turkish areas, as primary importance to, 15; direct access to the sea for, 191; disposition of the Allied Powers regarding granting sea terminal to the new, 8; essential requirement for the welfare of, 13; estimated per capita revenues of, 87; exceeds its present possibilities, 99; financial future of, 240; financial obligations assigned to the new, 236; financial position of the new, 233; formation of an -·- extremely difficult without the presence of European troops, 105; frontier of, 114; healthy economic life for the future of, 43; immediate impetus to the commercial development of, 76;
Comprehensive Index of Geographical Names
262
importance to the new, 16; inclusion of Cilicia in, 178; Inter-Allied Expert Commission appointed to consider delimitation of the boundaries of the new, 4; Kerasun and Ordu will probably lie outside of, 169; loans granted to, 241; map (1:1,000,000) with the boundaries of the proposed, 215; near neighborhood of the future, 189; needs of many public services for the new, 239; new -·- will have to become responsible for the payment of an annual sum, 233; not in the best interest of, 44; Persian government will not be hostile to, 82; petitions to include Kharput in, 14; portion of debt of Russia will be assigned to, 89; portions of the Vilayets of Erzerum, Bitlis and Van within, 45; pre-war population in the area which will be, 72; pre-war population of the future, 71; probable population of the new, 72; question of an adequate sea terminal for, 16; question of supplying an adequate access to the sea for, 45; question of the boundaries between Turkey and the new, 41; reduction of the population of the area which will make up, 72; reestablishment of -·- by the terms of the Turkish Treaty, 15; report on the boundaries of the future, 99; San Remo decision regarding to the boundaries of, 7; sea terminal for the highland, 19; Southern and western boundaries of the new, 8; statement by Premier Venizelos (February 4, 1919) suggesting vilayet of Trebizond form part of, 23; superior officers of the gendarmerie stationed in the vilayets contiguous to the frontiers of, 67; trade relations with definite market towns in, 43; Treaty of Sevres as binding on, 6; Turkish portion of, 237; Turkish troops cannot be used in opposition to the establishment of, 231;
Turks and Tartars as permanent residence of, 73; unless the Turkish system is cancelled the new -·- would be handicapped, 233; Venizelos’ opinion (February 4, 1919) that the vilayet of Trebizond should form part of, 189; Venizelos’ opinion (May 14, 1920) that the vilayet of Trebizond should not form part of, 190; Venizelos’ opinion on inclusion in -·- six Armenian vilayets, together with Russian Armenia and the vilayets of Trebizond and Adana, 178; Venizelos’ opinion on the components of, 178; Venizelos’ opinion on the vilayet of Trebizond as part of, 178; Zangezur and Ala Verdi districts of the province of Erivan fall to, 69.
Armenia, Turkish (Western Armenia, Armenian Turkey):
Armenian population in the territory east of the Euphrates in, 155; Armenians, after war (500,000) in, 100; best general maps of the four eastern vilayets of, 146; conditions of life existing in, 74; corresponding demilitarized zone in, 37; enforcement of the Turkish Treaty in, 16; from the ruins of the Ottoman Empire, 149; frontier between -·-, Turkey, and Kurdistan (map), 148; Northern Persia has been brought into railway connection with, 76; not favoring -·- as determining fact, 172; number of Armenians that it will be possible to bring back into, 99; railroad project for, 93; Railroad projects for -·- before the war, 174; recommended southern and western boundary of, 148; representatives and partisans of, 150; Treaty of Sèvres, furnishing -·- with adequate military security, 36; valley of Kershut in the heart of, 222.
Armenian cities: boundary line of Armenia lying southwest of -·- of Bitlis and Mush, 43; of Bitlis as far as the city of Mush, 17.
Comprehensive Index of Geographical Names
263
Armenian districts: American military observers and relief workers in, 73; Armenians will work in amity with the Kurds in, 72; Chorokh valley as direct commercial drainage to, 20; revenues of -·- in the fiscal year of 1910-1911, 237.
Armenian enclave: creating discontent and unrest on the borders of, 162.
Armenian highlands: Black Sea as the natural outlet of, 197.
Armenian lands: Armenia including all -·- in Turkey and Russia, 229; topographical particularities of communications, 220.
Armenian mountains: geologists believe that -·- are heavily mineralized, 70.
Armenian plateau, (Plateau): altitude of, 163; Bay of Rizeh, as the only site meeting the requirements of a maritime debouché for 223; Erzerum as the central and most essential point of, 157; in order to assure the defence of the Armenian plateau, 158; Kharput as a part of, 164; Kharput as the westward buttress of, 163; Pontic Chain as the coast-chain of, 220; Sandjak of Kharput as the gateway to, 158; traffic between -·- and the Mediterranean Sea, 198; Trebizond road enters the heart of, 222.
Armenian port: designation of Ayas as, 197. Armenian provinces:
changing their boundaries by attaching portions of, 216; Kharput as a predominantly, 155; memorial calling upon the President to include the Province of Kharput, “as well as all the other -·-”, within the frontiers of the new state, 152; new state of Armenia including the former -·- of Transcaucasian Russia, 42; project aimed at the “denationalization” of, 216; under French control, 164.
Armenian region(s): Abandonment of all claim to certain non -·-, 219.
Armenian Taurus (see also Eastern Taurus): as the frontier between two countries, 218; Central Plateau of Armenia bounded by, 217; great barrier of, 220; line of defence of, 158.
Armenian territory: Armenian forces, until their occupation of Turkish -·- shall have taken place, will be utterly powerless to prevent it, 82; calculations not included -·- of the former Russian provinces of Kars and Erivan, 89; desirability of including this junction of Tekkeh in, 222; freedom of transit to or from any Allied State over, 209; frontier line along the crests to Gumuch-Khané in, 220; inclusion of Trebizond and Erzinjan within, 100; leaving within -·- the road between Almali, Fam, Milikhan and Bashkei, 107; making -·- as compact and strongly defensible as possible, 26; Mush plain, Bitlis and its environs remaining within, 108; not be too extensive in order that the Armenian element may rapidly obtain preponderance, 99; peace and quiet of the adjacent, 67; road from Kars to Batum via Ardahan and Artvin would remain in, 103; westward extent of -·- in Trebizond Vilayet, 18.
Armenian vilayets: actual revenues in, 235; cost of construction of railway connections into, 21; course of the future railway within, 22; Kharput as one of the six so-called -·- of the former Ottoman Empire, 154; proposed plan of building about 2,000 km of railroads in, 174; so-called six -·-, namely Erzerum, Van, Вitlis, Diarbekir, Kharput and Sivas, 149; Venizelos’ opinion on inclusion in Armenia six -·-, together with Russian Armenia and the vilayets of Trebizond and Adana, 178.
Comprehensive Index of Geographical Names
264
Armenian village(s): Kighi and Temran remain Turkish because of the strong commercial ties with Kharput, 44.
Arnus Dagh [point of reference]: 55. Arshik Dagh [point of reference]: 59. Artvin: present road via Ardahan to Batum, 103. Asia:
British map (1901-1902), Eastern Turkey in, 11; 146; Chief of the Division of Western, 2; Division of Western, 10; economic interdependence of Russia and western, 78; frontier of Turkey in, 114; sketch map of the Russo-Turkish frontier in, 227.
Asia Minor: Erzerum as the strategic key of eastern, 157; French and British forces in, 85; Greek advance into, 232; Greek troops in northwestern, 85; Pontus, separate unite from the rest of, 183; 190.
Asiatic Turkey (see also Turkey, Turkish, Turkish Armenia):
best maps of, 217; population of, 18; Russian ten verst map of, 146; spheres of influence in, 78.
Askar Dere [point of reference]: 58. Athens, letter from (Frazier to Colby, May 14,
1920), 180. Atineh: roads to, 221. Australia, Commonwealth of: signatory of the
Treaty of Sevres (August 10, 1920), 201. Avesipy, village of [point of reference]: 57. Ayas: [on the Gulf of Alexandretta] designation
as an Armenian port, 196. Azerbaidjan (see also Azerbaijan):
acknowledgment of the independence of, 79; Bolshevist control of, 81; Bolshevist coup d’état in, 85; Bolshevist regime in, 81; forces of -·- Soviet Republic, 82; government of, 80; independent Republic of, 80; immediate neighbor of Armenia, 80; movements of Bolshevist -·- troops, 82; neighbor upon the north, 80;
non recognition by the USA, 7; recognition of independence of, 79; Republic of -·-, as a dependency of Soviet Russia, 80; representatives of, 96; troops of, -·- Socialist Republic, 230; US note (August 10, 1920) to, 25.
Azerbaijan: beginning, boundary of, 108; boundary between the State of Armenia and, 102; clashes with, 140; free access to the Black Sea for, 195; free use of port of Batum for, 196; frontiers with, 138; map showing boundaries between Georgia, Armenia and, 106; Tartar State of, 100.
B Bache Kale [point of reference]: 219. Bagdad: Arab outbreaks around, 230. Baghir Dagh [point of reference]: 107. Baghir Pasha Dagh: line of heights north of, 109. Baiburt:
free use of the road from Erzerum via, 19; 104; old highway via, 5; railway connection through, 22; 169; roads from, 104; 107; town of, 47.
Baku: Bolshevist forces evacuation from, 81. Balkan Peninsula: Venizelos on, 181. Baluchistan: diplomacy of the British Foreign
Office with relation to, 78. Barajul Dagh [point of reference]: 108. Barsak Dere (Kara Chai) [point of reference]:
eastern headwaters of, 65. Bashit Dagh [point of reference]: 111. Bashkala:
sheet of the Turkish map, 53; valley of, 108.
Bashkei [point of reference]: 107. Batum:
absolute possession of, 196; access to the sea through the port of, 195; Armenian outlet to the sea via, 126; Armenian rights in, 195; as natural outlet of northern Armenia, 195;
Comprehensive Index of Geographical Names
265
attributed to Georgia, 223; boundary between Armenia and the free state of, 102; British evacuation from, 196; British international map on, 146; Chorokh valley bellow, 25; establishment as a free port, 4; free access to the Black Sea by the port of, 195; free State of, 103; map showing the two solutions for free State of, 106; free transit for Armenia, 196; free transit for Azerbaijan, 196; freedom of access for Armenia to the port of, 20; mouth of the Chorokh River near, 151; outlet at, 19; outlet to the sea via, 126; point west and south of, 214; port of, 5; 19; 102-103; 145; 172; present road from Kars to, 103; provision of the treaty on, 20; railway between Kars, 103; Russian Bolshevist troops in, 230; suggested frontiers for the state of, 112.
Bayazid: existing caravan route from plain of, 46. Beirut: receipt per square kilometer, 234. Belereshuk pass [point of reference]: 54. Belgium:
German procedure against, 31; Plenipotentiary Representatives of, 51.
Biluki Dagh [point of reference]: 56. Bingol Dagh [point of reference]: to the west
of, 107. Biredjik [point of reference]: 114. Bitlis, city of:
23 kilometers southward from, 56; about 30 kilometers southwestward from, 56; Armenian cities of -·- and Mush, 43; Armenian city of, 17; boundary upon the west from, 44; connection with Cilicia, 197; connection with Kharput, 197; pass at 2100 feet below, 17; remaining within Armenian territory, 108; to be added to Armenia, 129.
Bitlis, vilayet of [province]: area strictly confined to, 9; Armenian, 22; Awarded to Armenia, 233; boundaries to be fixed in, 8; boundary between the vilayets of Erzerum, 60; boundary between the Vilayets of -·- and Van, 54; 55; boundary lies within, 44; boundary to be fixed within the four Vilayet(s) of, 51; corridor into, 153; determination of the frontiers in, 41; economic outlet for, 162; frontier between Turkey and Armenia in, 53; 139; 145; 148; 165; frontier to be fixed in, 52; one of the four provinces, 215, 219; one of the six Armenian vilayets, 149; opposition the separation of, 84; parts of, 9; 138; per capita tax, 234; portions of, 45; religions centers within, 44; routes to the interior, 169; southern part of, 214; three Vilayets of Van, -·- and Erzerum, 26.
Bitlis, Sandjak of [district]: boundary between -·- and Sairt, 55; entirely undefended, 232; return to former homes in, 49; south-western part of, 18.
Bitlis Su [point of reference]: 56, 110. Biyuk Su [point of reference]: 109. Black Sea:
access to, 181; Bolshevist fleet in, 230; communications between interior of Armenia, 222; free access to, 194, 195; from the Persian border to, 148; inhabitants of the coastal region of, 49; natural outlet of the Armenian highlands, 197; natural outlet of the four Vilayets, 166; northwards to, 112; on the shores of, 220; outlet for Armenia upon (to the), 5, 19; railroad leading from, 175;
Comprehensive Index of Geographical Names
266
railway connections to, 173; reference for the frontier, 65; 108; 112; 114; 148; 168; 220; railway connections to, 173; southern shore of, 108; 112; 182; study of ports, 22; to the Pontic range and to, 47; under control of the interallied fleet, 232; unity of the coastal area of, 45.
Borgha Paya [point of reference]: 64. Bosphorus: water connection via, 168. British Empire:
as political factor for Armenia, 77; defense of the strategic frontier of, 79; defensive liabilities of, 79; Plenipotentiary Representatives of, 51; signatory of the Report and Proposals (London, February 24, 1920) by the Commission for the Delimitation of the Boundaries of Armenia, 98; signatory of the Treaty between Principal Allied Powers and Armenia (Sevres, August 10, 1920), 200; tremendous strain upon, 79; Tripartite Convention on Anatolia, 78.
Bulgaria: Adrianople and Kirk Kilisseh as part of, 121; Armenian refugees from, 99; claim to territory, 121; finances of 238; in the direction of, 181; per capita contributions in, 87; per capita debt, 238; per capita revenue before the war in, 87; 238; pre-war situation in, 88; representative at the commission, 115.
Buyuk Su (Kighi Su) [point of reference]: 60. Byzantine Empire: Armenia under, 221. Calcutta: source, Records of the Survey of India
published in 1916, 226. C Canada, Dominion of: signatory of the Treaty of
Sevres (August, 10, 1920), 201. Cape Yeres [point of reference]: 221. Caspian Sea: Resht and Enzeli on the southern
shores of, 231.
Caucasus: representatives of Azerbaidjan and Georgia were heard with regard to situation in, 96.
Central Plateau of Armenia, see Armenia, Central Plateau. Chakar Geul Dagh [point of reference]: 108. Chalghy Yady, village of [point of reference]:
63. Charbukhur Su, valley of [point of reference]:
107. Chardaklar (Palumor), village of [point of
reference]: 60. Chardakli, village of [point of reference]: 63. Chavresh Dagh, ridge: western boundary of
Armenia, 107. Chenajky, village of [point of reference]: 59. Cheyardash peak [point of reference]: 57. Chimen-Dagh pass [point of reference]: 64. Chimish-Gezek (Dersim) [point of reference]: 158. Chokh Gedik, pass of [point of reference]:
summits of, 54. Cholik (Chevelik), village of [point of reference]:
59. Chopans, village of [point of reference]: 56. Choris Dagh [point of reference]: 60. Chorish Dagh [point of reference]: line of
heights, 109. Chorokh, river:
left bank of, 19; outlet at valley, 20; source of, 221; valley, Armenian appeal for an outlet through, 25; valley of, 151.
Chutela (Akche Kara) Dagh [point of reference]: 59.
Clgindig Su, valley of [point of reference]: 108. Cilicia:
Adana in, 149; Armenian insertion respecting, 166; Djaihun Irmak in, 114; line of communication southward to, 163; military movements in, 128; railway connection with, 197; report of additional Armenian massacres in, 127; state stretching to the Mediterranean, including, 138;
Comprehensive Index of Geographical Names
267
to be included in the Armenian State, 178; Turkish Nationalists in towns of, 231; without the rich and fertile, 157.
Cilician port, special rights in some, 197. Constantinople:
administrative center of the empire, 235; Allied control over, 229; Armenian Patriarchate at, 155; Government, 134; government and control of, 120; retention of the Turks at, 119; Sultan’s government at, 84; 114; Haidar Pasha port in, 196; Representative of the Joint Armenian Council at, 203; Sultan’s government at, 84; terms of a protocol signed in, 227; theology and law schools at, 159; Turkish government beyond the limits of, 27; zone reserved for, 120.
Crimea: General Wrangel in, 81. Czecho-Slovakia:
Armenia, about the size of 69; Plenipotentiary Representatives of, 52.
D Daghestan: advise for de facto recognition of, 96. Danube, river: junction of, 168. Dar Boghaz (Kuttu Dere) [point of reference]: 60. Dardanelles: water connection via, 168. Darnis Dere [point of reference]: 111. Daruni, village of [point of reference]: 56. Dedeagatch: port of international concern, 192. Dersim, Sandjak of [district]:
among Armenian desiderata, 150; autonomous Kurdish area including, 37; Chimish-Gezek in, 158; from the northern border of, 44; important Kurdish, 162; in Mamuret-ul-Aziz Vilayet, 62; inclusion of, 151; population estimates for, 160; Armenian minority in, 161; strategic advantage of, 164; trail from Pelur in, 63.
Deshtumi, village of: leaving to Armenia, 57; unnamed stream near, 56.
Diarbekir, city of: Armenians, predominant element in, 157; non inclusion, 165; railway connection with, 197; seat of Tigranes the Great, 154.
Diarbekir, vilayet of [province]: Armenian representatives of, 152; Armenians in, 155; attribution to Armenia various locations in, 152; Channels southward to, 163; inclusion within the boundaries of Armenia, 150; limits of the zone in, 30; one of six Armenian vilayets, 149; Sandjak of Arghana, in, 161; without the rich and fertile province of, 157.
Dinek, village of [point of reference]: 60. Dir Mouem Kilisa, village of [point of
reference]: 54. Djaihun Irmak (Cilicia) [line of reference]:
stream of, 114. Djanik, Sandjak of:
Greeks inhabiting the coastal area of 24; in relation to the vilayet of Trebizond, 147; non-inclusion by Article 89; 146; right to deal with the littoral of, 45.
Djesireh-Ibn-Omar [point of reference]: frontier of Turkey in Asia, 114.
Djulfa: railway branch to town of, 75; railway connection with Tabriz in Persia, 76.
Don [region]: anti-Bolshevik troops in, 230. Dorne, village of [point of reference]: 59. E East Siberia: General Semenoff troops in, 230. East Thrace: outside of the zone reserved for
Constantinople, 120. Eastern Armenia: see Armenia. Eastern Taurus (see also Taurus, Armenian
Taurus): barrier of, 197. Egypt: Pan-Islamic agitation against British
control of, 229. Ejekis Dere [point of reference]: 111. Elback: boundary between Kazas of Mamuret-ul-
Hamid and, 54: Elisavetpol: massacre of several thousand Tartars
in, 81.
Comprehensive Index of Geographical Names
268
Enbu, village of [point of reference]: 56. Enderes: two roads lead from Erzinjan to, 100. England:
already preoccupied in Mesopotamia and in Palestine, 130; representatives on the International Commission on Straits, 115.
Enos-Midia: as frontier of Turkey in Europe, 113. Enzeli: Bolshevist menace from Resht and, 231. Epirus (Northern): unsettled question of, 181. Erchek, village of [point of reference]: 60. Erivan (see also Erivan Republic):
Ala Verdi district of the province of, 70; Armenian territory of former Russian provinces of Kars and, 89; information coming via, 232; railway connection via, 75; Zangezur district of the province of, 70.
Erivan Republic: socialistic sentiment among the Armenians of, 240.
Erkghan, village of [point of reference]: 63. Ermenistan (see also Armenia):
Turkish Eyalet of Erzerum or, 154; as province of Erzerum was called by the Turks, 217.
Erzeroom: see Erzerum. Erzerum, city of (see also Erzerum, vilayet of, sandjak of):
ancient route, Teheran-Tabriz- -·-, 168; army advance upon, 163; caravan route, Trebizond- -·-, 95; central point of the Armenian plateau, 157; existing caravan route from, 46; exorcize Turkish Nationalists out, 77; expedition for the survey of the railroad line: Trebizond -·- 175; free use of the road to Trebizond, 19; 104; line running from Trebizond or Riza to, 175; Nationalist leader at, 232; old highway to the port of Trebizond, 5; plain and, 76; railway connection from Persia through Baiburt and, 22; railway connection with Cilicia and Kharput, 197; railway project, Trebizond- -·-, 95; road from, 104; strategic key of eastern Asia Minor, 157;
Turkish Nationalist forces at, 232; way of Kharshut Valley to, 175.
Erzerum, district of: districts of Trebizond, -·-, Van and Bitlis, 49; economic significance of, 156.
Erzerum, Eyalet of (Principality): as Ermenistan, 154; as the natural western boundary of 218; beyond the, 164; boundary line northward to the, 63; by the, 217; Comparing the administrative divisions with those of the former, 217; course of the upper, 162; Geographical unity of Armenia under the name, 216; junction of the boundary within 14 km of, 62n; Plain of Kharput, in the loop, 153; territory east of the, 155; Western Administrative limits of Erzerum, 220.
Erzerum, plain of: 46. Erzerum, Sandjak of: boundaries of the Sandjaks
of Erzingan and -·-, 61. Erzerum, vilayet of [province]:
administrative boundary between vilayets of Mamuret-ul-Aziz and, 62; administrative boundary between vilayets of Trebizond and, 64; administrative division in the early nineteenth century, 14; administrative limits of, 217; all of the revenues of, 236; Armenia acquires the entire, 235; Awarded to Armenia, 233; attempt to define boundaries of, 145; boundaries of the former province of, 14; 219; boundaries to be fixed in, 8; boundary between vilayets of Bitlis and, 60; boundary between vilayets of Trebizond and, 107; confined to the four vilayets of, 9; course of the future railway via Armenian, 22; economic outlet of Kharput, 162; entire population in, 45; extent of -·- before 1878, 145; former province of, 51; 151; four province(s) of, 214; 219; frontier between Turkey and Armenia in, 41;
Comprehensive Index of Geographical Names
269
53; frontier to be fixed in, 52; highlands of, 175; Kazas of Erzingan and Kemakh in Erzingan Sandjak of, 62; limits of the four vilayets of Van, Bitlis, Trebizond and, 166; movements of Bolshevist - Azerbaidjanese troops into, 82; no roads leading southward into, 21; northward to the boundary between the Vilayet of -·- and Trebizond, 63; one of the six Armenian vilayets, 149; part(s) of, 9, 138; per capita contribution in, 234; point of reference on the western boundary of, 112; Pontic range separating Lazistan Sandjak from, 46; question of frontier, between Turkey and Armenia, 139; 165; railroad leading to the highlands of, 175; religious centers within, 44; representative from, 174; routes to the interior, 169; separation of, 84; southern and western boundary of Turkish Armenia within, 148; spurs which run well into, 76; territory outside of the four vilayets, Van, Bitlis, and Trebizond, 25; three Vilayets of Van, Bitlis and, 26; to be added to Armenia, 129; Turkish parts of, 48; western administrative limits of, 221; western boundary, 109, 112.
Erzingan (see also Erzinjan, Erzinghian): southwestward from the city of, 62; southwestward from the Palumor- -·- pass, 61; boundaries of the Sandjaks of -·- and Erzerum, 61; boundary northward to the vicinity of, 44; city of, 63; junction between the Kazas of -·- and Kemakh, 62; mountain ridges west of, 47; southern boundary of the Sandjak of, 61.
Erzinghian, carriage road, 222.
Erzinjan (see also Erzingan, Erzinghian): inclusion within Armenian territory, 100; out of the region to the sea, 101; region of, 101; 102; Proposal of Commission for the Delimitation of the Boundaries of Armenia, 101; road to Kemak, 100; road to Trebizond, 101; two roads which lead from, 100.
Espiya Dere (Yaghaj Dere) [point of reference]: 65. Euphrates, river (see also Euphrates (Upper), Murad Su, Frat Hehri, Kara Su, Euphrates College):
all territories east of, 153; Armenia irredenta beyond, 165; as historical line between Greater and Little Armenia, 218; as the natural western boundary of the Eyalet of Erzerum, 220; Central Plateau of Armenia bounded on the west by, 219; constitutes the historical line of demarcation between Greater and Little Armenia, 220; Dersim Sandjak within 14 km of, 62; Kemakh on, 61-62; northwestward to, 59; 63; Plain of Kharput, lying in the loop of, 154; territory east of -·- in Turkish Armenia, 156; Western Administrative limits of Erzerum as far as, 222.
Euphrates (Upper) (see also Euphrates, Murad Su, Frat Nehri, Kara Su, Euphrates College):
course of, 163; in the memorandum (May 22, 1920) of General Bagratuni, 151; valley of, 152.
Europe (see also European countries, European Powers, European trade, European troops]:
alliances and preoccupations of, 137; anomaly of the Turks in, 119; attack upon the peace of, 134; frontier of Turkey in, 113; governments outside of, 211; Kharput desired by, 157; military occupation of Turkey in, 114; responsibilities in, 141; military, occupation of Turkey in, 114.
Comprehensive Index of Geographical Names
270
Euxine Pontus (see also Pont-Euxine): Greeks of, 182; Kingdom of, 220; President of the National League of, 187.
Eyreti, village of: as part of Armenia, 54. F Fac [point of reference]: Turco-Persian frontier
from, 226. Fam, village of: road between Almali and, 107. Ferhadin, village of [point of reference]: 61. Feziria Tepe [point of reference]: 61. Fiume: analogous to, question of the Pontic
Greeks and the Armenian sea terminal, 25. France:
adoption of disinterestedness, 174; already preoccupied in Syria, 130; foreign offices of, 78; Georges Maurice Paléologue, Ambassador of, 202; Jules Combon, Ambassador of, 202; Map Areas of Especial Interest as established by the Tripartite Convention of August 10, 1920, between Great Britain, Italy and, 242; Plenipotentiary Representatives of, 51; policy of disinterestedness, 174; representative on the Commission, 115; represented by Clemenceau, 177; signatory of the Report and Proposals of the Commission for the Delimitation of the Boundaries of Armenia (Feb. 24, 1920), 98; signatory of the Treaty between the Principal Allied Powers and Armenia, (August 10, 1920), 200; sphere of interest, 71; Tripartite Convention (August 10, 1920) between British Empire, Italy and, 71; 95; 164.
Frat Nehri (see also Euphrates, Euphrates (Upper), Murad Su, Kara Su)[point of
reference]: 59; 63. G Gendj:
administrative boundary between the Sandjaks of Mush and, 59; Sandjak of, 58.
Georgia (see also Georgian Democratic Republic):
Armenian frontiers with Azerbaijan and, 138; attitude on assignment Chorokh valley to Armenia, 25; Batum, attributed to, 223; border disputes between Armenia and, 82; boundary between the State of Armenia and, 102; branch line of the Russian-Transcaucasian Railway system connecting Tiflis in -·- with Alexandropol, 75; clashes with, 140; coup d’état in, 82; free access to the Black Sea for Armenia, Azerbaijan, Persia and, 195; free port of Batum in, 19; frontier between Armenia and, 103; map showing boundaries between Armenia, Azerbaijan and, 106; non recognition by the USA, 7; not party to the Treaty of Sevres, 196; promise by -·- to Armenia and Azerbaijan grant free transit to and free use of Batum, 196; recognition of independence of, 79; representatives of Azerbaidjan and, 96; sobering effect upon, 81; treaty signed between Soviet Russian and, (May 7, 1920), 196.
Georgian Democratic Republic: conclusion (May 7, 1920) of a treaty with Soviet Russia, 81; immediate neighbor of Armenia upon the north, 80.
Germany: agreement with Russia on non-construction of railroad in Turkish-Armenia, 174.
Geunik Su (point of reference): 109; 110. Ghabarti Dagh [point of reference]: 61; 109. Ghabzu Dere [point of reference]: 60. Great Zab River:
Armenian claim upon the upper valley of, 44; not in the best interest of the Armenian state to include, 44.
Greater Armenia (see Armenia, Greater) Greece:
convention between Principal Allied Powers and, 192; Kingdom of, 120; memorandum urging that Pontus be restored to, 189;
Comprehensive Index of Geographical Names
271
Plenipotentiary Representatives of, 51; Pontic Geeks’ political connection with, 23; represented by Venizelos, 177; representative with one vote on the Commission of the Straits, 115; territorial claims of Greece at the Peace Conference (February 4, 1919), 177; 189; territorial expansion of, 181.
Gumush-khana (see also Gumuch-Khané, Gumush-Khaneh):
population of, 188; railway through, 169; Sandjak of, in Vilayet of Trebizond, 25; town of, 47, 64; Trebizond and Tireboli route(s), 169.
Gumuch-Khané (see also Gumush-Khana, Gumuch-Khaneh): frontier line ascend to, 219. Gumush-Khaneh (see also Gumush-khana, Gumuch-Khané):
incorporation of, in Armenia, 102; mining district of, 101.
Gundenu, village of [point of reference]: 57. Gunik Su [point of reference]: 59. Guzel Dere [point of reference]: 110. Guzel Dere Su [point of reference]: 56. H Hadije Tepe [point of reference]: 59. Hadjin, town of: Turkish Nationalists in, 229. Haidar Pasha: port in Constantinople, 196. Haifa, port of: will be free to Armenia, 196. Hakkiari:
Armenians in Sandjak of, 18; district, autonomous Kurdish area including, 37; ethnographic consideration 43; junction of the -·- Van Sandjak boundary, 53; Kurds in Sandjak of, 18; Nestorian Christians in Sandjak of, 18; non-Armenian regions such as, 219; population estimates for the Sandjak[s] of, 18; predominantly Kurdish in population and economic relations, 43; President Wilson on Sandjak of, 17; Sandjak of, administrative boundary between, 53; Sandjak(s) of Van and, administrative boundary between, 225; Turks in Sandjak of, 18.
Hakstun Dagh [point of reference]: 60. Halkit, village of [point of reference]: 64. Harput (see also Kharput): Educational and
Benevolent Societies of, 152. Hatab Dagh [point of reference]: direction to, 109. Hazo, village of [point of reference]: 57. Hedjas (= Saudi Arabia): question of mandates
(San Remo, 24 April 1920), 126. Helin, village of [point of reference]: 58. Heyshtirem, village of [point of reference]: 58. I Iky Sivry steam [point of reference]: 64. Illinois: size of the future Republic of Armenia,
69. Independent Pontian Republic (see Pontian Republic, Euxine Pontus):
on the southern shores of the Black Sea, 182; situated on the confines of Armenia, 186.
India (see also British Indians, Indians): against attack by land, 79; Assistant Under-Secretary of State for, 201; British Foreign Office diplomacy with relation to, 79; Defense of the Empire of: 201; Records of the Survey of, 226.
Italy: as Principal Allied Power, 200; King of, 202; Map Areas of Especial Interest as established by the Tripartite Convention (August 10, 1920) between Great Britain, France and, 242; Plenipotentiary Representatives of, 51; representative on the Commission (Zone of the Straits), 115; represented by M. Galli and Colonel Castoldi, 98; represented by Orlando, 177; special interest of, 78; Tripartite Convention between British Empire, France and, 95; Tripartite Convention (August 10, 1920) between Great Britain, France and, 164; tripartite convention signed at Sevres by, 71.
J Janik (see also Djanik): sandjak of the Vilayet of
Trebizond until 1910, 146.
Comprehensive Index of Geographical Names
272
Japan: Ambassador of the Emperor of -·- at London, 202; Ambassador of the Emperor of -·- at Paris, 202; as Principal Allied Power, 200; Plenipotentiary Representatives of, 51; representative, 97; represented by Lieutenant Commander Anno, 98; represented by Makino, 177.
Julfa (Djulfa): former Russo-Persian frontier to be determined on the Aras below, 108.
K Kabil Jeviz, village of [point of reference]: 57. Kach Rash Dagh, line of heights [point of
reference]: 110. Kachet, village of [point of reference]: 55. Kalepontamos, river [point of reference]: 221. Kalmen Dagh, peak [point of reference]: 57. Kambus Dagh, line of heights [point of
reference]: 110. Kamran Tepe [point of reference]: 110. Kanisor Tepe [point of reference]: 55. Kar Kishla, village of [point of reference]: 64. Kara Chai (see also Barsak Dere) [point of
reference]: 65. Kara Dagh [point of reference]: 63. Kara Hissa, village of, [point of reference]: 53. Kara Hissar [point of reference]: 111. Kara Kia, village of [point of reference]: 64. Kara Su (see Euphrates, Upper) [point of
reference]: 63; 109; 110; 111; 162. Kara Tepe [point of reference]: 65. Kara Yayrak [point of reference]: 64. Karahissar Sharki (Shebin Karahissar) [point of
reference]: 65. Karaja Kaleh [point of reference]: 61. Karasu Sifla, village of [point of reference]: 110. Karshut Su:
future railway along, 22; assignment of -·- valley to Armenia, 67.
Karshut Valley: Armenian renouncement of the claims to, 25; development of transportation routes in, 109; greater adaptability of the route of 47; Greek renouncement of claim to, 25; position of, 169;
Railroad Project for Turkish Armenia before the War, 93; route of, 47; way via -·- to Erzerum, 175.
Karput, Kharput (see also Kharpurt), city of: Armenian request regarding, 13; as part of Kurdistan, 14; historical frontier of Armenia lain west of, 13; inclusion in the Armenian state, 14; inclusion in Armenia, 151; Mohammedan population of, 160; observations by E. W. Riggs, President of Euphrates College in, 152.
Karput (Kharput) (see also Mamuret-ul-Aziz, area, district, Kaza, Sandjak of:
Armenian petition to include, 151; as part of Kurdistan, 14; 37; as part of province of Erzerum, 14; Boghos Nubar’s and Avetis Aharonian’s telegram claiming, 150; demilitarizing the southern and eastern portions of the Armenian frontier, including the Dersim, -·-, Sairt, 37; entire commerce, agriculture and industry of -·- in the hands of the Armenians, 156; exceptionally rich agricultural region, 156; gateway to the Armenian Plateau, 158; inadvisability to include -·- in Armenia, 14; population estimates for -·- and Dersim, 160-161; rich silver mine of Keban-Maden in, 156.
Kharpurt, depression of, plain of: Armenian Government wish to secure, 153; inclusion alone -·- in Armenia, 162; inclusion in Armenia, 151; nine minefields of different descriptions in -·-, 218; possession of the rich -·- with its uncontested Armenian traditions, 163.
Karput, Kharput, vilayet of (see also Mamuret- ul-Aziz):
360 villages and towns of, 154; 40% or 40-45,000 of [American] Armenians come from, 155; always been recognized as a predominantly Armenian province, 155; an important cultural centre for Armenians, 159;
Comprehensive Index of Geographical Names
273
an important cultural centre for the Turks and other Moslems, 159; arguments against including -·- within the boundaries of Armenia, 159; arguments in favor of including -·- within the boundaries of Armenia, 153; Armenia without the rich and fertile provinces of -·-, Sivas, Diarbekir and Cilicia, 157; Armenian claims to, 166; Armenian commerce and agriculture after the war, 162; as geographically a part of the central plateau of Armenia, 157; 164; as geographically the westward buttress of the Armenian plateau, 163; as historical a part of Armenia Major, 154; attribution to Armenia, 152; barrier in the vicinity of, 158; conclusive argument against the inclusion of -·- within the boundaries of Armenia, 165; distinct disadvantages for Armenia in holding -·- alone, 164; economic aspects of the inclusion of -·- in Armenia, 197; economic outlet of, 162; economically the richest region of Armenia, 156; geographical considerations relative, 219; important Armenian cultural centre, 154; letters and telegrams calling for the inclusion of -·- in Armenia, 153; main line of communication between -·- and the sea, 162; Medressehs of -·-, or Mohammedan schools of theology and law, 159; Memorandum to the President from the United Educational and Benevolent Societies of Harput, on, 152; mountain chains between Chimish-Gezek (Dersim), -·-, and Palu (Arghana), 158; mountain chains in the neighborhood of, 158; need for change all its habits of trade, 163; one of the six Armenian Vilayets, 154; Pasdermadjian’s memorandums requesting inclusion in Armenian, 150; point of invasion from the west, 158; pre-war population of, 159; proposed railroad line Samsun - Sivas -·-, 175;
question of -·- raised by US Government, 167; railways connecting Erzerum or Bitlis with -·- and Cilicia or Diarbekir and the Mesopotamian, 197; rich in minerals, 156; strong commercial and church ties, 44.
Kars, city of: Armenian title over the road -·- Ardahan-Batum, 102; railway connection with, 75; railway to be constructed between -·- and Batum, 103.
Kars, province, sandjak, district of: Armenian territory of the former Russian provinces of -·- and Erivan, 89; communications into Erzerum vilayet from, 232; extension of the Alexandropol -·- railway, 76; important coal field north of Olti in, 70; population of entire provinces of Erivan and -·- of the former Russian Empire, 70; Vilayet of Erzerum included the sandjaks of -·-, Tschaldyr, and Lazistan, before 1878, 145.
Karshit Su, basin of [point of reference]: 112. Karshut Valley:
railroad leading from the Black Sea to the highlands of Erzerum by way of, 175; route of -·- ending at the town of Tireboli, 47.
Kartalik Tepe [point of reference]: 60. Kasser, village of [point of reference]: 57. Kastamuni, Vilayet of:
Greeks inhabiting the coastal area of, 24; non inclusion in Armenia, 45.
Katar Tepe [point of reference]: 62. Keban-Maden: silver mine of in the District of
Kharput, 156. Kehirvanik, village of [point of reference]: 58. Kehnam Dagh (or Kara Dagh) [point of
reference]: 63. Kelek Kiran [point of reference]: 63. Kelkid, river: topographical particularities of
Armenian land communications, 220. Kelkit Chai (or Kelkit Irmak) [point of
reference]: 64. Kemakh (on the Euphrates):
junction of the boundary between Kazas of Erzingan and, 62; point of reference, 61;
Comprehensive Index of Geographical Names
274
road from Erzinjan to, 100; trail from Pelur in the Dersim to village of, 63.
Kerasun, city of: as point of reference, 65; coast to a point between Tireboli and, 191; commercial outlet for the eastern portion of the Vilayet of Sivas, 26; elimination from Armenia of the coastal region of, 26; flanked by the Pontic ranges, 169; harbor towns and hinterland of, 48; leading port in the vilayet of Trebizond, 168; no special advantages, 169; one of the leading ports in the Vilayet of Trebizond, 168; region of, 173.
Kerman Tepe [point of reference]: line of heights, 110.
Kershut, valley of (see also Karshut Valley): topographical particularities of Armenian land communications, 221.
Kesan Dare [point of reference]: 56. Kesbah, village of [point of reference]: 65. Keshab Dere: see Venasit Dere. Keupeka peak [point of reference]: 57. Kevmetala Tepe [point of reference]: 54. Kharshit Dere [point of reference]: 109. Khoros: village of, [point of reference]: 56. Khoshab Su:
main water-parting between the Zap Su and, 54; valley of, 108, 112.
Khotour (see also Kotur): town and territory of, 226.
Khozat-Dersim: sheet of the Turkish General Staff map: 62n.
Kighi, village of [point of reference]: 44; 60; 61; 109.
Kighi Su: see Buyuk Su. Kiliktin, village of [point of reference]: 64. Kingdom of Greece: part of East Thrace to
become part of, 120. Kirassounde, south of [point of reference]: 221. Kirk Kllissch, city of [point of reference]: 121. Kirmana, village of [point of reference]: 64. Klesiry Dagh [point of reference]: 54. Kluhuran, village of [point of reference]: 59. Koh Kiran Daglar [point of reference]: 54. Koja Arbler, village of [point of reference]: 63.
Komiss Dagh [point of reference]: 59. Komit Dere (Ak Su), basin of [point of
reference]: 65. Kotur (see also Khotour):
collection of treaties on the status of the boundary near, 226; ending at the Persian frontier south-west of, 108; note on -·- and the Armenians, 227; representation on the map of the Turkish-Persian Frontier near, 227.
Kotur, district of: mapping of the northern part of the boundary, including, 228.
Kotur, town of: Article LX of the Treaty of Berlin, the Sublime Porte cedes to Persia -·- and territory of, 227; from the Persian border southwest of, 43.
Kotur, village of: 40 miles of undemarcated boundary near, 226; discussion on Persian, 226; approximately 25 km southwestward from, 53; Treaty of Berlin leaves -·- in Turkey, 227; various controversies between the Persians and the Turks regarding, 226.
Kozma Dagh [point of reference]: line of heights, 110.
Kral Khani Boghazy, pass of [point of reference]: 63.
Krdes Gedik, pass of [point of reference]: summits of, 54.
Kuban, region: troops in, 230. Kuchi Keui, village of [point of reference]: 64. Kuchkiran Dagh [point of reference]: 111. Kulay, village of [point of reference]: 59. Kulp Boghazy (Kulp Su) [point of reference]: 58. Kumistan, village of [point of reference]: 59. Kur Dagh [point of reference]: 56. Kurdagh [point of reference]: 110. Kurdistan (see also Turkish Kurdistan):
autonomous area of 94, 224; autonomous part of Turkey, 80; autonomous state in Turkey, 14; city and Sandjak of Kharput as part of, 14; cut off district of Dersim from, 162; immediate neighbor upon the south and west, 80; mountainous country, 104; natural barrier between Armenia and, 17; outlet for Armenia by way of, 5;
Comprehensive Index of Geographical Names
275
possibility of independence, 71; provisions regarding, 83; terms on, 82; tendency to restrict the Armenians to -·- coast, 23; Tigris river irrigation system of Turkish, 44; tracing on the spot the frontier between Turkey, Armenia and, 148; zone to be demilitarized in, 37.
Kurtik Dagh, line of heights [point of reference]: 110.
Kush Dagh [point of reference]: 111. L Lazistan:
along the coast of, 46; as part of Armenia, 129; as part of Vilayet of Erzerum, 145; autonomous Sandjak of Lazistan under nominal Armenian suzerainty, 5; autonomy for, 103; coast, Armenian sea terminal on, 8; coast, harbors of, 20; creation of an autonomous State of, 104; Batum as the free port of, 103; height’s of the Pontic Range at the back of, 21; population of, 188; Sandjak, Armenian control over, 19; Sandjak, separation from the Vilayet of Erzerum, 46; southern boundary of, 107n; special rights of Armenia over the district of, 4; special rights over, 115; 122; transferring all of Trebizond except, 24; Venizelos’ opinion on, 24.
Lebanon: government similar to, 182. Lered, village of [point of reference]: 56. Lichinak, village of [point of reference]: 59. Little Armenia (see also Armenia): Euphrates as
line of demarcation between Greater and, 218. London (see also London Conference, London Technical Commission, Expert Commission of London, London Inter-Allied Commission):
British War Office map (-·-, Feb. 1920), 148; copy of -·- sub-commission’s report on Armenia, 131; course of the negotiations on peace with Turkey in, 135;
drafting of the Turkish treaty at а meeting of the Supreme Council held in, 129; Viscount Chinda, Ambassador of Japan at, 202; volume #45 of British and Foreign State Papers, published in, 225; volume #4 of The Map of Europe by Treaty, published in, 226; report of the Interallied Commission appointed by the Conference at, 19; cable (September 14, 1919) on the conditions of British withdrawal from Batum, 196; Conference at -·- (January, 1920) and Pontic Greeks desire for independence, 23; Pan-Pontic memorandum (March, 1920) addressed to the Peace Conference in, 182.
M Maine: twice the size of Armenia, 69. Maku, district of: east of Mt. Ararat, 82. Malatia, Sandjak of: Syrian Christians and non-
Moslem Kizilbashis of, 155. Malato Bagh [point of reference]: 57. Mamuret-ul-Aziz (see also Kharput, Mezreh):
administrative boundary between the vilayets of Erzerum and, 62; boundaries of the Sandjaks of Erzingan and Erzerum and the Vilayet of, 61; city and district of Kharput, as part of the Vilayet of, 13; half the inhabitants (Mezreh), Armenians, 159; limits of the zone in, 30; non-inclusion in the commitment of arbitration, 165; restriction to assign any portion of -·- to Armenia, 14; within the boundaries of the Armenian State, 150; zone to be fixed parallel to the boundary adjoining vilayets, Diarbekir, -·-, etc., 30.
Mamuret-ul-Hamid: boundary between Kazas of Elback and, 53.
Mardin, frontier of Turkey in Asia, line running north of, 114.
Marmora, Sea of: frontier of Turkey in Asia 114; Greek territory to, 115; zone South of the Straits and, 114;
Comprehensive Index of Geographical Names
276
water connections with European countries via, 168.
Masla Dere, junction of [point of reference]: 109. Mata Gedik [point of reference]: 55. Mediterranean Sea:
traffic flow between the Armenian plateau and, 198; Frontier of Turkey in Asia, 114.
Meidan Chenidiani, peak [point of reference]: 55. Mergelu, peak [point of reference]: 56. Mergelu Tepe [point of reference]: 56. Merjan Daghlar [point of reference]: 62. Merkezer Dagh, peak of [point of reference]: 53. Mersina, port of [point of reference]: 172. Mesopotamia:
as addition to the defensive liabilities of the British Empire, 79; British forces of occupation in, 84, 231; British line of defense in Persia and, 80; establishment of free state(s) in Syria, Palestine, -·-, Armenia, etc., 185; France and England already preoccupied in Syria, Palestine and, 130; Great Britain in, 71; independent under a mandatory, 84; pacification and prosperity of, 84; Pan-Islamic agitation against British control of, 229; irrigation system of Turkish Kurdistan and, 44; main line of communication southward to, 163; Pan-Islamic agitation against British control of Egypt, -·-, 229; relinquishment by Turkey all rights to, 116; relinquishment by Turkey of her rights to, 122; within the domain of, 44.
Mesopotamian: line of defense, 79; railway connecting Erzerum or Bitlis with -·- system, 197.
Metkut, village of [point of reference]: 63-64. Mezra [point of reference]: to the north-west of, 107. Middle East:
British diplomacy with relation to, 78; great historic movements in the Near and, 86; Pan-Islamic agitation against British control of Egypt, Mesopotamia and, 228.
Mir Ismail Dagh [point of reference]: 58. Moks, village of [point of reference]: 54.
Moks Su, river [point of reference]: 54; 55. Monzur Silsilesi [point of reference]: trail across,
61; 62n. Morava, river [point of reference]: at the junction
of the Danube and, 168. Murad Su, river (see also Upper Euphrates and
Frat Nehri): border line northwestward to, 59; course of, 110; following the course of, 107; junction of, 109; natural border of Armenia, 158; suitable corridor via the valley of, 153; traversed by the valley of the Upper Euphrates (-·-), 151.
Mush, city of: 20 km west, 107; 42 km south-westward from, 58; 47 km southward from, 57; 56 km westward from, 59; boundary upon the west from Bitlis and, 44; economic, and military barrier extending as far as, 17; south of the Armenian city of Bitlis as far as the city of -·-, 17; southwest of the Armenian cites of Bitlis and, 43; Van, Bitlis,-·-,and Lazistan, to be added to Armenia, 129.
Mush, Sandjak of: point on the administrative boundary between the Sandjaks of Gendj and, 58.
Mush, plain of: 108. Mustafa Bey Konaghy, village of [point of
reference]: 61. N Nakhchivan: railway connection from
Alexandropol via Erivan and, 75. Near and Middle East (see also Middle East; Near East):
British diplomacy with relation to the Middle East and, 79; historic movements in, 86.
Near East: establishment of peace and order in, 187; general trend of recent reports from, 81n; peace of, 138; present political situation in, 3; return of peace to, 143.
Comprehensive Index of Geographical Names
277
Nevaleyn, village of [point of reference]: 56. New Jersey: mass meeting at, 153. New York: Armenia America Society in, 152. New Zealand, Dominion of: signatory to the
Treaty between the Principal Allied Powers and Armenia (August 10, 1920), 201.
Northern Epirus: unsettled question of, 181. Northern Persia: railway connection with
Turkish Armenia, 76. Nuri Ser, peak [point of reference]: 56. O Of or Off:
Armenia would start at a point west of, 220; coast-from Off-Surméné to the former Russo-Turkish frontier, 219; harbors of the Lazistan coast at Riza and, 20; mule tracks of Rizeh, -·- and Atineh, 221; roads from Baiburt to Surmenek and, 104; roads from Baiburt to -·- and Surmench, 104; 107n.
Oghnut [point of reference]: south-east of, 109. Ognet [point of reference]: line passing to the
west of, 107. Olhk Sifla (Olek Ashaghi): south of, 110. Olti: coal field north of -·- in Kars province, 70. Ordu:
elimination from Armenia of the coastal region of, 26; harbor towns and hinterland of Kerasun and, 48; highways from the south debouching at Kerasun and, 26; Kerasun and -·- flanked by the Pontic ranges, 169; one of the leading ports in the vilayet of Trebizond, 168; productive regions of Kerasun and -·-, 173.
Ottoman Empire: Nationalists’ operations to preserve territorial integrity of, 27; territorial changes of the former, 123; regions which formerly belonged to, 141; map of administrative divisions of, 146; Armenia not destined to emerge from the ruins of, 149; Armenian National Delegation representing the Armenians of the former, 150;
six so-called Armenian Vilayets of the former, 154.
Ottoman provinces: administrative limits of, 216. Armenia within the limits of the first, 216;
Ozim, village of [point of reference]: 55. P Palestine:
establishment of free states in Syria, -·-, Mesopotamia, Armenia, etc., 185; France and England preoccupied in Syria, Palestine and Mesopotamia, 130; relinquishment by Turkey all rights to Mesopotamia, Arabia, -·-, Syria, 116; 122.
Palu (Arghana) [point of reference]: 158. Palumor (Chardaklar), village of [point of
reference]: 60; 61. Palumor-Erzingan, pass [point of reference]: 61. Palumor-Kighi, trail [point of reference]: 61. Paris (see also Paris Peace Conference, American Commission to Negotiate Peace at Paris):
Acceding to the wishes of the Pontic Greeks by Armenian delegation in -·-, 24; Allied recognition of Armenia (19 January 1920) at, 96; Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary of His Britannic Majesty at, 201; Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary of H. M. the Emperor of Japan at, 202; Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary of H. M. the King of Italy at, 202; American withdrawal from -·- in December,(1919), 8; Armenian Petition (August 20, 1920) despatched from the Embassy at, 213; Avetis Aharonian, President of the Delegation of the Armenian Republic at, 6; deposit of ratifications (Treaty between Principal Allied Powers and Armenia, August 10, 1920) shall be made at, 211; despatch of President’s acceptance (May 17, 1920) to, 51, 165; despatch through the US Embassy in -·- the authenticated copy of the Treaty of Sevres, 52; estimates for the Population of Asiatic Turkey used by the American Peace Delegation at -·- Conference, 18;
Comprehensive Index of Geographical Names
278
estimates of Greeks of Pontus made for American Commission to Negotiate Peace at, 188; letter (July 10, 1920,) from Congrès des Originaires du Pont-Euxin in, 187; library reports and current information gathered and used at, 10; negotiations in London and -·- with regard to the terms of peace with Turkey, 135; notes of a conversation (4 February, 1919) held in M. Рichon’s room at, 177; notification of the French Republic through diplomatic representatives in, 211; original claims of the Pontic Greeks at -·- Peace Conference, 1920, 242; Ottoman delegation discussions with the Allied Governments on the terms of Peace Treaty at, 182; petition (July 10, 1920) of the Pontic Greeks representatives located in, 190; petition of the Armenian delegations in, 151; petition sent (July 22, 1920) to the US President by Armenian Delegation at, 13; population estimates for the Sandjak of Arghana used by the Armenian Delegation at, 161; population estimates for the Sandjaks of Kharput and Dersim by the Armenian Delegation at, 160; President of the Armenian National Delegation in -·-, representing the Armenians of the former Ottoman Empire, 150; Statement (February 4, 1919) by Premier Venizelos at the Peace Conference at -·- , 23; telegram (August 18, 1920) from the US Embassy in, 166.
Pashandasht Duz [point of reference]: 111. Pelekoz: village of [point of reference]: 58. Pelur, peak [point of reference]: in the Dersim,
62; 63. Persia:
Armenian refugees from, 99; boundary (frontier) between Turkey and, 111; 112; 225; 227; Bolshevist menace from Resht and Enzeli in, 231; British forces in, 231; British line of defense in, 80; diplomacy of the British Foreign Office with relation to, 78;
eastern boundary of Armenia, between the Armenian state and, 7; existing caravan route from, 46; free access to the Black Sea for, 195; immediate neighbor upon the east, 80; imports from Trebizond, 172-173; increased prosperity, 172; junction of the Van-Hakkiari Sandjak boundary with the frontier of, 53n; protocol signed (November 17, 1913) by Turkey, Great Britain, Russia, and, 228; railway connection Djulfa with Tabriz in, 76; railway connection from -·- through Erzerum and Baiburt, 22; status of the old boundary between Turkey and, 94; 224; Tartars of northwest, 82; village of Kotur in Turkey than in, 227.
Persian Gulf: from Fac on the -·- to Mt. Ararat, 226. Phor: western boundary of Armenia as far as, 107. Platana, port of: special privileges for Armenia
in, 104. Poland:
as signatory of the Treaty of Sevres, 51; pre-war debt of Russia assigned to, 89.
Poluk Chai [point of reference]: junction of, 109. Pont-Euxine, Kingdom of: before becoming
under the Byzantine Empire, 221. Pontic (mountain) Chain:
as the coast-chain of the Armenian Plateau, 220; central and eastern fractions of, 221; from a point to the north-west of Mezra, 107.
Pontic range: at the back of Lazistan, 21; Kerasun and Ordu flanked by, 169; on the crest of, 65; rugged character of, 46; tunnel through, 22; west of the city of Erzingan to, 47.
Pontus (see also Euxine Pontus): autonomous form of government, 182; Bishops and other notables of various territories in, 189; by severing a portion of, 181; geographical and economic unit, 183; Greeks of, 188; Pontic Greeks claim for Pontus, 190; situation in, 184;
Comprehensive Index of Geographical Names
279
special clause concerning, 183; to be restored to Greeks, 189; trail of self-government in, 186; under the jurisdiction of mandatories, 180.
Portugal: as signatory of the Treaty of Sevres, 51. R Resht: Bolshevist menace from Enzeli and, 231. Riza [Rizeh]:
desire of the Pontic Greeks for an autonomous administration from -·- to Sinope, 45; double disadvantage of, 169; from the town of, 182; harbors of the Lazistan coast, at Riza and, 20; line running from Trebizond or -·- to Erzerum, 175; one of the leading ports in the vilayet of Trebizond, 168; request of Pontic Greeks for autonomy over an area from Sinob to, 24; -·- Chorok road as one of the means of communication between that port and the interior of the country, 223.
Rome: American Ambassador at, 133. Roumania (see also Rumania):
as signatory of the Treaty of Sevres, 51; representation of -·- in the League of Nations, 115.
Ru Su [point of reference]; 110. Rumania (see also Roumania): territorial
expansion of, 181. Russia (see also Russian Armenia; Russian Empire, see also Russia, Soviet:
-·- agreed to yield in favor of the French capitalists the railroad project, 175; agreement between -·- and Germany not to allow any railroad construction in Turkish-Armenia, 174; agreement between -·-, France, and Great Britain in the spring of 1916, 78; Armenia within the protective orbit of, 86; Armenian lands in Turkey and, 229; as one of the two great external political factors for Armenia, 77; economic interdependence of -·- and western Asia, 78; former Armenian provinces of Transcaucasian, 42;
geographic proximity of -·- to Armenia, 78; Government of -·- to be recognized by the civilized world, 120; question of -·- in San Remo (April 24, 1920), 126; question of -·- in San Remo (April 25, 1920), 127; immediate neighbors of Armenia under the dominating shadow of -·- and Great Britain, 80; imperialistic advance of -·- over Trans-caucasia, 77; impossibility of final decision on Straits without the consent of, 120; position of advantage gained by -·- for the projected Bolshevist-Tartar-Turkish attack, 80; pre-war debt of, 89; proclamation of independence of Azerbaidjan (May 28, 1918)from, 80; protocol (November 17, 1913) signed by Turkey, Great Britain,-·-, and Persia, 228; quarter of a million fled into, 183; representation in International Commission on Straits, 115; returning into exile in, 184; territory politically a part of, 25; troops in lower, 230; vital interests of, 120.
Russia (Soviet): Azerbaidjan as dependency of, 80; conclusion of a treaty between Georgia and -·- on May 7, [1920], 81; 196; necessity to estimate the power of, 229; position of advantage gained by -·- for the projected Bolshevist-Tartar-Turkish attack, 80; statement (January 1918) by the Government of, 229; troops dependent upon, 230.
Russian Empire: Armenian districts, formerly parts of, 20; Erivan and Kars provinces of the former, 70.
S Sadik: village of [point of reference]: 64. Sairt (district, Sandjak):
Armenians in, 18; assignment to Armenia the Sandjaks of Hakkiari and -·- by President Wilson, 17; boundary between the Sandjaks of Bitlis and, 55; 56;
Comprehensive Index of Geographical Names
280
demilitarizing of Dersim, Kharput,-·-, and Hakkiari districts, 37; Kurds in, 18; Nestorian Christians in, 18; population estimates for the Sandjaks of Hakkiari and, 18; predominantly Kurdish in population and economic relations, 43.
Salonica: on the Aegean Sea, 168. Samsun:
agreement for the construction and working of the ports -·- and Trebizond of, 171; competitive ports of Batum and, 172; economic comparison of the ports -·- and Mersina, 172; estimate of the railway cost -·- Sivas, 170; line of communication between Kharput and the sea by way of Sivas and Amasia to, 162; proposed railroad line -·-Kharput, 175; seaport of, 146.
San Remo (see also San Remo Conference): agenda of -·- meeting (24 April 1920), 126; agenda of -·- meeting (25 April 1920), 127; agenda of -·- meeting (26 April 1920), 129; agenda of -·- meeting (27 April 1920), 132; 135; Armenian problem in, 130; Johnson’s cable (25 April 1920) from -·- regarding Armenia, 144; letter Johnson to Colby, -·- (27 April, 1920), 134; limits set in, 149; proposals transmitted to -·- by the London Conference of Ambassadors, 129; telegrams from -·- (April 24-27, 1920), 91.
Sari Dagh [point of reference]: 54. Sari Kamish [town of]: railway connection
Alexandropol, Kars and, 75; 76. Saris [point of reference]: Southern Boundary of
Armenia, as far as, 108. Sassun Dere [point of reference]: 57. Semhaj, village of [point of reference]: 56. Serbia:
strategic frontier for, 121; expanded territorially more than Greece, 181.
Seylevan (Farkin), village of [point of reference]: 58.
Seyluk, village of [point of reference]: 58. Shaitan Dagh, [point of reference]: line of
heights, 109.
Shaitin Dagh, [point of reference]: Western Boundary of Armenia, 107.
Shakulans Dagh [point of reference]: 111. Shanghar, village of [point of reference]: 59. Shatak, village of [point of reference]: 54. Shatak Su [point of reference]: 54, 111. Sheikh Omar Tepe [point of reference]: line of
heights, 110. Sheitan Dagh [point of reference]: 60. Sheitan Daghlar [point of reference]: 60. Shetek [point of reference]: 110. Shikh Tabur ridge [point of reference]: 56. Shiran Chai [point of reference]: western
tributaries of, 65 Shkolans Dagh [point of reference]: 54. Shorakh, village of [point of reference]: 61. Sian Dagh [point of reference]: 61. Sihaser Tepe [point of reference]: 56. Silos (Kersinod) Dagh [point of reference]: 61. Sinanli, village of [point of reference]: 64. Sinob (see also Sinope), Greek autonomy over an
area from -·- to Riza, 24. Sinope (see also Sinob):
region from Riza to, 45; to the west of, 182;
Sinpass, village of [point of reference]: 55. Sivas, city of:
communication from -·- into Erzerum, 231; line of communication to sea by way of, 162; per kilometer cost of construction for railway Samsun -·- project, 170; proposed railroad line Samsun -·- Kharput, 175.
Sivas, vilayet of, province of: Armenia without the rich and fertile, 157; attribution to Armenia various locations in, 152; boundary between the Vilayets of Trebizond and, 64; 65; commercial outlet for the eastern portion of, 26; Kerasun and Ordu as outlets for the easternmost sections of, 48; one of the six Armenian vilayets, 149.
Smyrna (city, district, zone): administered by the Greeks, 116; arrangement for, 122; Greek occupation of, 84; Greek territory in, 95; port of, 196.
Comprehensive Index of Geographical Names
281
Solkhan Dagh [point of reference]: 59. Sorsy, village of [point of reference]: 55. Soviet Russia (see also Russia, Russian
Empire): Azerbaidjan as a dependency of, 80; conclusion of a treaty with Georgia (May 7, 1920), 81; 196; dependence upon, 230; estimation of the power of, 229.
Straits [Turkish] (Bosphorus and Dardanelles): gendarmerie responsible to the Government of, 30; Greek, French ant British forces aligned along the zone of, 85; International Council for the Government of Constantinople and, 120; international security of the freedom of, 114; passage of warships and the regime of, 115, 120; right of a military occupation of a zone South of, 114; Zone of the Straits (par. 3 of the French letter, March 12, 1920), 114.
Suez Canal: defense of, 79. Sultan Dagh, line of heights [point of reference]:
109. Surmanch (see also Sumench), valley of:
western frontier of Lazistan as far as, 107. Surmena: portion of Trebizond Vilayet lying
west of, 47. Surmena, town of: coastal area westward of, 24. Surmench:
Hinterland of Trebizond between Tereboli, Ardasa and, 104; roads from Baiburt to of and, 107.
Surmene, mouth of: to be comprised within the frontiers of Armenia, 223.
Surmenek: roads from Baiburt to of and, 104. Switzerland: climate and geography of Armenia
comparable to, 69. Syria:
establishment of free states in -·- , Palestine, Mesopotamia, Armenia, etc., 185; France already preoccupied in Palestine, Mesopotamia and, 130; Gouraud’s French troops in, 231; relinquishment by Turkey of her rights to Mesopotamia, Arabia, Palestine and, 116; 122.
T Tabriz:
ancient Teheran -·- Erzerum route terminating at Trebizond, 168; Djulfa connected with, 76.
Talury Dere [point of reference]: 57, 58. Tasik Dere [point of reference]: limits of the
basin of, 111. Tatvan [point of reference]: north-west of, 110. Tchataldja, line: Frontier of Turkey in Europe, 114. Tehran: -·- Tabriz-Erzerum route terminating at
Trebizond, 168. Tekke Tash [point of reference]: 63. Tekkeh:
cross-roads of, 223; Erzinghian carriage road at, 222; inclusion of the junction of -·- in Armenian territory, 222.
Teleck [point of reference]: 220. Temran: Armenian village, remain in Turkey, 44. Terek region: troops in, 230. Thrace (see also East Thrace):
as part of the Kingdom of Greece, 120; Greek sovereignty over part of, 115; Greek territory in (map), 95.
Tiflis: Cable No. 69 of August 23, [1920] from, 196; Russian-Transcaucasian Railway system connecting, 75.
Tigris River: fertile soil and great water power along, 157; irrigation system of, 44.
Tireboli (Tereboli, Tripolis, Tripoli), kaza of: boundary between the Kazas of -·- and Kerasun, 65;
Tireboli (Tripolis, Tripoli), town of, port of: 1909 recommendation for the construction of a port at, 171; advantages of, 171; an unimpeded outlet for Armenia to Trebizond and, 24; Armenian decision on, 164; attitude towards, 172; attribution to Armenia the sea coast, from the Georgian frontier to, 191; broad gauge railway to be constructed to, 170; debouching at, 25; Erzerum Railway Project (map), 241;
Comprehensive Index of Geographical Names
282
Hinterland of Trebizond between -·-, Ardasa and Surmench, 104; no road to, 169; one of the chief port of the future Armenian state, 169; one of the leading ports in the Vilayet of Trebizond, 168; railroad from Tripolis (-·-) to Erzerum, 175; railway line through, 76; recommendation to include -·- to Armenia, 26; relative merits of the Gumush-khana -·- route, 169; route ending at, 47; seaport for regions of Kerasun and Ordu, 173; settlement of the question of the outlet for Armenia at Trebizond and, 23; southwest of, 112; survey of the Tripolis (-·-) Harbor, 176; terminal at, 22; Trebizond and -·- , not far from each other, 170; unwise and unjust to leave Trebizond and -·- under Turkish control, 26.
Toms, village of [point of referrence]: 63. Trabisond: see Trebizond. Transbaikal: Bolshevist forces in, 229. Transcaucasia:
advance of Russia over, 77; Armenian forces in, 230; Batum as the free port of, 103; Harbord Mission to Armenia and, 173; forces opposed to Armenia in, 230; political situation in, 19; political uncertainty in, 20; serious operations in, 81; uncertainty of the politics of, 20.
Transcaucasian states: three divisions to, 96-97. Transcaucasian Russia (see also Russia, Russian Empire):
former Armenian provinces of, 42. Trebizond, city of, port of:
access to the sea through, 129; according expert commission, 129; advantage of -·- comparing to Tireboli, 169; advantages of, 171; agreement (1911) for the construction of the ports of Samsun and, 171; Armenian access to the sea through, 180;
Armenian Government’s request for the area east of, 213; arrangements for freedom of transit through Turkish territory to, 21; as outlet for Armenia to sea, 101; as port of International Concern, 192; as terminus of the trade route across Armenia, 122; attitude towards -·- and Tireboli by the Turkish Minister of Public Works in 1909, 172; being attributed to Turkey, 222; broad gauge railway to, 170; Choice between Trebizond and -·- as the chief port of Armenia, 169; country surrounding, 23; desire of to give -·- to Armenia, 101; erection of a breakwater at, 171; Erzerum -·- Caravan Route, 95; free use of the road from Erzerum and Baiburt to, 104; free use of the road from Erzerum via Baiburt to, 19; frontier from the Persian border to the Black Sea west of, 148; greatest width of the river, South of, 220; if Armenian renounce Tireboli and, 164; if under Turkish suzerainty, 21; in the centre [of the Pontic Chain], South Of, 221; location of Tireboli and, 170; maintenance of the region of Erzinjan and Trebizond under Turkish rule, 102; occupation of -·- by the Russian Army in 1916, 186; old highway from Erzerum via Baiburt to, 5; Persia’s exports to, 172; Persia’s imports from, 173; Pontic chain west of, 221; population Estimates for, 93; population of, 177; Premier Venizelos on -·- before the Council of Ten, 177; present fortifications of, 105; principal highway Teheran-Tabriz-Erzerum route terminating at Trebizond, 168; proposed railroad line -·- Erzerum, 175; question of granting -·- to Armenia, 5;
Comprehensive Index of Geographical Names
283
question of the outlet for Armenia at, 23; railroad line running from -·- or Riza to Erzerum, 175; railway connection through Erzerum and Baiburt ending at, 22; recommendation (1909) for the railway construction to, 171; reference to -·- in Article 352 (Turkish Treaty), 194; relative merits of the Gumush-khana -·- route, 169; representatives from -·- in Parliament, 176; road from Erzinjan to, 101; road from Erzinjan to, 101; suggestions if -·- will remain Turkish: 103; surveys of -·- route, 170; transit trade via, 172; tunnel through the Pontic range back of, 22; unimpeded outlet for Armenia to, 24; use of the port, 21; Venizelos’ explanation regarding, 177; Venizelos’ Statement on -·- (February 4, 1919), 93; Venizelos’ Statement on -·- (May 13, 1920), 93.
Trebizond, vilayet of, region of, province of (see also Trebizond road):
75% of the revenues of, 236; arbitration limited to the four provinces of -·- , Erzerum, Bitlis and Van, 219; Armenia economically insufficient without Erzerum, -·- and Kharput, 156; Armenia acquires 75 per cent. of, 235; Armenian territory in, 18; attitude of the Government of the United States regarding, 9; attribution to Armenia the eastern part of, 191; Central Plateau of Armenia bounded on the North by, 217; designation of the provinces of Erzerum, -·- , Bitlis and Van to Armenia, 214; economic position of ports in, 168; Governor General of, 186; Greek population of, 188; in Article 89 of the Turkish Treaty (1920), 8; 146; inclusion in Armenia the six vilayets, together with Russian Armenia and -·- and Adana, 178; incompatible with the maintenance of the region
of Erzinjan and -·-under Turkish rule, 102; Janik, or Djanik, was a sandjak of, 146; leading ports in, 168; limits on President’s action within vilayets of Van, Bitlis, Erzerum and, 166; Moslem population of, 188; non-Armenian regions of, 219; parts of the provinces of Van, Bitlis, Erzerum and -·- to be added to Russian Armenia, 9; 138; per capita contribution of the inhabitants of, 234; Pontic mountain chain as the boundary between -·- and Erzerum, 107; population of, 188; position of the sandjak of Djanik in relation to, 147; possibility to split -·- between Armenia and Turkey, 23; Premier Venizelos (May 14, 1920) on, 190; Premier Venizelos view on -·- not to be divided, 190; Premier Venizelos views on, 24; purely a matter of an economic outlet for Armenia, 22; question of the frontier (boundaries)between Turkey and Armenia, in the provinces of Van, Bitlis, Erzerum and, 139; 145; 165; readiness of the Armenian Government to renounce its claim to the western part of, 214; receipts per square kilometer in, 234; restriction in boundary consideration, 15; revenues which apply to Erzerum, -·- , Van and Bitlis, 224; settlement of the problem of, 21; total area of Armenia confined to the four Vilayets of Erzerum, Trebizond, Van and, 9; Venizelos’ opinion on -·- as part of Armenian State, 178; 189; Venizelos’ opinion on, 23; western boundary of Turkish Armenia within the vilayets of Erzerum, Trebizond, Van, and, 148; western part of, 151; western sandjakes of, 9; whole -·- as a part of Armenia, 180; within the original claims of Armenians, 149.
Trebizond (Sandjak of): coastal area of, 21; population estimates for, 188;
Comprehensive Index of Geographical Names
284
unimpeded sea terminal for Armenia in, 3; 19; 93.
Trebizond, Republic of: Greeks’ claims for, 177; Venizelos, not in favor of, 189.
Tripoli (see Tireboli). Tschaldyr, sandjak of: Vilayet of Erzerum
included, Kars, -·- , and Lazistan, 145. Turkestan: Bolshevist military strength in, 228. Turkey (see also Eastern Turkey, Turkish Empire, Armenian Turkey, Asiatic Turkey):
according Treaty of Sèvres all of Sivas remains a part of, 26; agreement between Armenia and, 173; all predominantly Kurdish or Turkish districts have been left to, 43; any Moslem subject of, 27; appendices to the report on arbitration, 90; areas of Armenia which were detached from, 88; Armenia and -·- have put their formal signature to the terms, 166; Armenia including all Armenian lands in -·- and Russia, 229; Armenian refugees in Russian Armenia and, 99; Armenians banned to carry arms throughout, 28; Armenians of Armenia and for those of, 197; arrangement with the French on portions of the Armenian provinces of, 164; autonomous Kurdistan with the possibility of independence from, 71; average revenue of the whole of, 234; average revenue of the whole of, 234; binding clause President’s decision in the Treaty of Peace with, 191; Bolshevist regime before beginning serious operations in Transcaucasia and, 81; boundary (frontires) between Armenia and, 2; 51; 53; 139; 165; 191; clauses of the proposed Treaty with, 132; comparison with the total revenues of, 236; conditions of peace to be offered, 133; control of headwaters within the domain of -·- and Mesopotamia, 44; decision on point at frontier between -·- and Persia, 227;
decision to leave to -·- Kerasun and Ordu, 48; demilitarization of zones in -·- Kurdistan and Armenia, 37; determination of the frontiers of -·- and Armenia in the Vilayets of Erzerum, Trebizond, Van and Bitlis, 41; disarming of all existing forts throughout, 48; dividing equably between Armenia and -·- the summit of the pass, 63; drawing up and signing the instrument on reconstitute of, 133; enforce the Treaty in parts of, 141; financial regime of -·- as extremely complex, 233; financial regime of, 233; for -·- the treaty was signed by General Haadi Pasha, 6; Frontier of Turkey in Asia, 114; frontier of Turkey in Europe, 113; Frontiers of -·- as established by the Treaty of Sèvres, 95; Frontiers of Turkey as established by the President Wilson’s decision (map), 242; Greece would be pleased to enter into relations with, 181; if Trebizond being attributed to, 222; if whole province of Trebizond were detached from, 180; invitation to US President to settle the boundaries between -·- and Armenia, 127; Kurdistan as an autonomous state in, 14; Kurdistan, an autonomous part of -·- for a year, 80; leaving to -·- village of Araz, 54; leaves to -·- a military bridgehead, 62; leaving -·- villages of Kar Kishla, Sadik, Kara Kia, and Ara, 64; leaving the village of Kotur in, 227; leaving to -·- junction of the two roads (Kuchi Keui and Kara Yayrak), 64; leaving to -·- trail from Pelur, 63; leaving to -·- village of Gundenu, 57; leaving to -·- village of Helin, 58; leaving to -·- village of Kulay, 59; leaving to -·- villages of Chalghy, Yady, Toms, and Alamlik, 63; leaving to -·- villages of Lered and Daruni, 56; leaving to -·- villages of Semhaj and
Comprehensive Index of Geographical Names
285
Nevaleyn, 56; leaving to -·- villages of Shanghar and Chenajky, 59; leaving to -·- villages within the basin of Komit Dere (Ak Su), 65; leaving to -·- villages within the drainage basin of the liquidation of German property in, 116; London Conference understanding with, 4; make with regard to access for Armenia to the sea. 191; Map, Eastern Turkey in Asia, 11; military forces of -·- under the Treaty of Sèvres, 28; military forces which -·- may maintain, 36; Nationalist forces in the four Eastern vilayets of former, 85; negotiations in London and Paris with regard to the terms of peace with, 135; new frontier between Armenia and, 225; no municipal police in -·- worthy of the name, 28; old frontier between -·- and Persia, 111, 112; one delegate of each Armenia, League of Nations, 195; original claims of the Armenians of, 149; original materials used in -·- by the Harbord Mission, 10; participation in the service of the Ottoman Public Debt of, 88; percentage of potential revenues in relation to the other parts of, 235; Pontic Greeks ought not to be divided between -·- and Armenia, 190; population of the territory acquired by Armenia from, 237; possibility of Trebizond Vilayet within, 45; prevent confusion and dispute regarding the point on the frontier between -·- and Persia, 225; progress of peace treaty with, 113; Proposal to left Trebizond and Erzinjan to, 101; Protocol (November 17, 1913) signed by -·- Great Britain, Russia, and Persia, 228; provinces of -·- in the hands of the great Powers, 122; question of the boundaries between Armenia and, 6; 41; 52; 139; recommendations upon the boundaries to be
established between -·- and Armenia, 4; reestablishment of peace with, 140; relinquishment by -·- of all rights to Mesopotamia, Arabia, Palestine, Syria and all the Islands, 116; 122; replay to note on the proposed Treaty with, 131; revenues and expenditures of, 116; right of a military occupation of, 114; Russia, and Persia, 227; serious consideration of the terms of peace with, 149; southern frontier of, 119; special convention between the Principal Allied Powers and -·- on Kurdistan, 83; status of the Old Boundary between -·- and Persia, 94; Status of the old boundary between Persia and, 225; superior officers of the gendarmerie in the vilayets of, 49, 67; the figures representing the debt of, 237; the most expensive par km construction of railway in all, 170; total revenues of, 236; tracing on the spot the frontier between Armenia, -·- and Kurdistan, 148; Treaty of Peace (August 10, 1920) was signed with, 52; treaty with -·- was signed at Sèvres on Tuesday, August 10 [1920], 6; Trebizond Vilayet assigned to, 24; Trebizond Vilayet to Armenia and another part to Turkey, 23; unmarked 40 miles of the boundary between -·- and Persia, 227; USA was not at war with, 118; Vilayet of Kastamuni definitely assigned to, 24.
Turkey, Anatolian: Tireboli nearer the productive regions of all of, 173.
Turkey, Armenian (see also Armenia; Armenia, Turkish): responsibility for the enforcement of the Turkish Treaty in, 16.
Turkey, Asiatic: report “Population of Asiatic Turkey”, 18; Russian 10-verst map of, 146; Russian, French, and British spheres of influence in, 78.
Comprehensive Index of Geographical Names
286
Turkey, Eastern: Armenian frontier in the autonomous Kurdish area of, 37; Eastern Turkey in Asia (British map), 146.
Turkish Armenia (see also Armenia, Russian Armenia, Turkish Empire):
conditions of life in, 74; general maps of the four eastern vilayets of, 146; number of Armenians possible to bring back into, 99; Number of existing Armenians in, 100; railroad project for, 93; railway connection with Northern Persia, 76; representatives and partisans of, 150; southern and western boundary of, 148; territory east of the Euphrates in 155; transit trade from the countries eastward of, 173; Turkish desire not to favor, 172.
Turkish Empire: 5% of the area of, 236; 5.4% of the total revenues of, 87; Allies’ obligations to reorganize, 137; Armenia in relation to the new, 95; Armenian financial experts, trained in the public service of, 89; average total revenue of, 88; control over as great a part of the old, 83; estimated pre-war debt of, 87; four eastern vilayets of the former, 74; proposed railway importance for, 172; provisions for demobilizing and demilitarizing, 38; separation of the Vilayets of Van, Bitlis, Erzerum and Trebizond from, 84.
U Union of South Africa: Acting High
Commissioner for, 201. United States [of America] (see also America, American, President of the United States, Government of the United States):
145th Independence of, 68; as the sole Great power, 136; Communication to request that -·- assume Armenian mandate, 139; decision (April 25, 1920) to request -·- to take the Armenian mandate, 127; expression by -·- its views, 143;
invitation for a mandate, 137; loan of a few millions by, 142; people of, 141; per capita contributions in, 87; position of Armenian finances in comparison with, 237; reasons, which have prevented -·- from becoming signatory to the Turkish Treaty, 133; representatives of -·- and Russia on Straits Commission, 115; represented by a Plenipotentiary at the peace conference, 118; signal service to Armenia by, 241; spirit shared by, 134; technical advice and loans of, 89; was represented at by President Wilson, 177; Wilson’s request to assume a mandate over Armenia by, 6.
Upper Euphrates (see also Murad Su) [line of reference]:
course of, 162; valley of, 151.
Urfa, city of [point of reference]: frontier of Turkey in Asia, 114.
Utch Kardash Tepe [point of reference]: 63. V Van, city of:
boundary location at 76 kilometers southeastward from, 53; great barrier of the Armenian Taurus stretching to South-East of, 220.
Van, Lake (Geul): boundary line of Armenia extending south of, 43; military advance upon Erzerum or upon the region of, 163; military barrier extending from the Persian border south of, 17; ridge of the heights bordering the southern bank of, 108; southern limit of the basins of the rivers which flow into, 111.
Van, Sandjak of, region of: administrative boundary between the and Hakkiari, 53; 225; junction of -·- Hakkiari Sandjak boundary
Comprehensive Index of Geographical Names
287
with the frontier of Persia, 53; pre-war agricultural production in, 69.
Van, Vilayet of [province of, district of]: 63 % of revenues of, 236; any territory outside of the four vilayets -·-, Bitlis, Erzerum and Trebizond, 25; Armenia acquires 63% of, 235; assignments of revenues for the Vilayets of Erzerum, Trebizond, -·- and Bitlis, 233; Bitlis, -·-, Mush, were to be added to Armenia, 129; border between Persia and, 76; boundaries (frontiers) to be fixed in the Vilayets of Erzerum, Trebizond, -·- and Bitlis, 8; 52; 139; 145; 165; 215; boundary between -·- and Bitlis, 55; boundary between Turkey and Armenia to be fixed within the four Vilayets of Erzerom, Trebizond, -·- and Bitlis, 51; boundary decision strictly confined to the four vilayets of Erzerum, Trebizond -·- and Bitlis, 9; 15; desire to return to the districts of Trebizond, Erzerum, -·- and Bitlis, 49; determination of the frontiers of Turkey and Armenia in the Vilayets of Erzerum, Trebizond, -·- and Bitlis, 41; development of transportation routes to the interior vilayets of Erzerum, -·- and Bitlis, 169; districts of Bitlis and -·- entirely undefended, 232; future railway in Armenian Vilayets of Erzerum, Bitlis and, 22; opposition to the separation of the Vilayets of -·- Bitlis, Erzerum and Trebizond from the Turkish Empire, 84; Parts of the provinces of -·- Bitlis, Erserum and Trebizond to be added to Russian Armenia, 9, 138; per capita contribution of the inhabitants of, 234; point where the Bitlis -·- boundary reaches the Moks Su, 54; population in Armenian portions of the Vilayets of Erzerum, Bitlis and Van, 45; population of the three Vilayets of -·- , Bitlis and Erzerum, 26; President’s actions limited of the four vilayets
of -·-, Bitlis, Erzerum and Trebizond, 166; 219; receipts per square kilometer in, 234; recommended boundary of Turkish Armenia within the vilayets of Erzerum, Trebizond, -·-, and Bitlis, 148; so-called six Armenian Vilayets, namely Erzerum, -·-, Вitlis, Diarbekir, Kharput and Sivas, 149; southern part of, 214.
Vankin Dagh [point of reference]: 55. Vardor, Valley of: construction of a canal at the
junction of the Danube and Morava rivers following down, 168.
Vaviran Dagh [point of reference]: 111. Veberhan Dagh [point of reference]: 55. Velkid: source of -·- and Chorok, 221. Venasit Dere (Keshab Dere): villages within the
drainage basins of the Yaghaj Dere (Espiya Dera) and, 65.
W Washington D.C.: letter (April 23, 1920) to
Armenian Representative, Congress Hotel, 125. Washington, city of:
Arbitral Award done at, 50; 68; extent of -·- responsibility for the new Armenia, 137; sympathetic notice of the Government of, 140; Supreme Council reply to -·- dispatch on the proposed Turkish Treaty, 132; memorandum (January 15, 1920) from Armenian Diplomatic Representative in, 150; Note (March 12, 1920) from the French Ambassador at, 91; 113; letter (March 24, 1920) to French Ambassador at, 118; Letter (May 17, 1920) to Wallace from, 144; letter (July 10, 1920) from Pontic Greek delegation to President Wilson in, 182; letter (august 20, 1920) Secretary of State from Embassy in, 213.
West Hoboken: mass meeting at -·- New Jersey (August 22, 1920), 153;
Western Asia: economic interdependence of, 78. Y Yaghaj Dere (Espiya Dere): villages within the
drainage basins of, 65.
Comprehensive Index of Geographical Names
288
Yerchi Tepe [point of reference]: 65. Yeshil-Irmak: territory between the mouth of the
Chorok and of, 220. Yokary Ahvalan [point of reference]: village of,
53; 54. Z Zab Su [point of reference]: 111. Zangezur: Ala Verdi and -·- districts of the
province of Erivan, 70.
Zap Su (Great Zeb River): main water-parting between the Khoshab Su and, 54.
Zazker, village of [point of reference]: 63. Zelfeh Dagh [point of reference]: south-west of,
109. Zily, village of [point of reference]: 57. Zuk Su (Gharasan River) [point of reference]: 57.
289
290
Index of Ethnic and Religious groups A Ajar[s]: to the East, in Lazistan, 104. Arab[s] (see also Arab people): persecuted by
Turks, 179; Arab people: ethnological frontier of, 119. Armenian[s] (see also Armenian element, Armenian inhabitant[s], Armenian people, Armenian population, Armenian Majority):
1,700,000 -·- in the Republic of Armenia and in the Turkish Armenia, 155; 105,000 -·- in the Vilayet of Diarbekir, 156; 40% of -·- in the USA came from Kharput, 155; advantage possessed by -·- in respect to the problem of occupation of Erzerum, 232; Allies not in a position to aid, 130; among the total pre-war population of the future Armenian state, 71; approximately 1,200,000 -·- in Russian Armenia, 100; Armenian National Delegation representing -·- of the former Ottoman Empire, 150; as legitimate prey for the Moslem population, 27; as minority in the Sandjaks of Kharput and Dersim before the war, 161; as the predominant industrial element in the city of Diarbekir, 157; assertion of -·- to work in amity with the Kurds in the Armenian districts, 71; bankers and artisans of Kharput exclusively, 157; citizenship of the Armenian Republic composed of Turks, Kurds, Greeks, Kizilbashis, Lazes and, 43; claim of -·- to the left bank of the Chorokh river, 19; comparatively small percentage of, 192;
compelled to ask a portion of territory on the seacoast, 25; concerns of -·- regarding to former Russian districts, 20; death of 180,000 -·- from famine, 223; deportations and massacres of, 16; did not officially enter objections to any of the terms of [Sevres] Treaty, 166; donations of -·- to their country, 142; eagerness of -·- for training and higher education, 75; elements of the indigenous population may make difficulties for, 192; entire commerce, agriculture and industry of Kharput in the hands of, 156; estimate of pre-war -·- population of the Trebizond Vilayet, 22; ethnic distribution of, 19; ethnographic distribution of -·-, Kurds, and Turks, 17; exertion by -·- to save what could be of Greater Armenia, 149; expression of happiness to be able to serve, 144; fear that -·- would be unable to hold Trebizond, 129; fixation of the northern boundaries between -·-, the Azerbaijani, and the Georgians, 70; fundamentally sound character of, 75; General Harbord in regard to the capacity of -·- to govern themselves, 74; generous donations of well-to-do, 143; great western Powers’ unwillingness or inability to aid, 77; Greek estimates of the population of Trebizond and number of, 188; half the inhabitants of Mamuret-ul-Aziz and the country were, 160;
Index of Ethnic and Religious groups
291
ill-treatment of -·- by Turks, 179; in the Kaza of Kharput, according Cuinet 161; in the Sandjak of Arghana, 162; in the Sandjak of Kharput and Dersim, according David Magie, 161; in the Sandjak of Kharput and Dersim, according Armenian Delegation, 160; in the sandjaks of Hekkiari and Sairt, 18; in the Vilayet of Trebizond, 188; industry and thrift of, 235; Kharput as an important cultural centre for, 159; Kharput Province with a population of 168,000, 155; Kurdish attitude towards, 83; Kurds playing equally against -·- and the Turks, 72; Kurds racially more akin to, 72; military-political problem in the solution of which -·- stand alone, 77; Millerand’s mistrust of, 127; minorities gladly and willingly working in harmony with, 50; Minorities Treaty (August 10, 1920) signed by, 75; Moslem population losses almost equal to those of, 17; Moslems, including the Lazes, held a majority over the Christians (-·- and Greeks) in the area which will be the Armenian State, 72; necessity of non-delusional approach of, 140; neither for the Armenians of -·- nor for those of Turkey, 197; never been allowed to own or carry arms throughout Turkey, 28; not strong enough to take the territories by force, 130; note on Kotur and, 227; number of -·- according American Commission to Negotiate Peace, 188; number of -·- that it will be possible to bring back into Turkish Armenia, 99; one-half of the area originally claimed by, 15; original claims presented at the Peace Conference by -·- of Turkey, 149; other difficulties by which -·- will be faced, 164; outcry among -·- because of uncertainties on
Armenian border in the treaty, 130; population of the vilayet of Kharput in 1914 was 500,000, of whom 150,000 were, 159; population percentages a year after the establishment of the new Armenian state, 73; possible need for more protection for peaceful, 37; possible obtaining the requisite financial support by, 76; possible renunciation of Tireboli and Trebizond in favour of Pontic Greeks, 164; predomination of -·- in the Vilayet of Diarbekir, 155; proposals by the London Conference of Ambassadors supported by, 129; question of the future of, 46; representatives of -·- of the city and Province of Diarbekir, 152; small Greek population, racially and religiously distinct from, 25; small number of -·- in the coastal area, 26; socialistic sentiment among -·- of the Erivan Republic, 240; students of foreign institutions exclusively, 154; tendency to restrict -·- to the Lazistan coast, 23; terrible results of the massacres and deportations of -·- and Greeks, 42; territory which -,- may be called upon to defend, 101; Turkish Nationalists as further complication for, 14; very few -·- left in this territory to become part of Armenian Republic 130; well-trained force of -·- in Russian Armenia, 85; willingness of -·- to renounce certain portions of the four Vilayets, 151.
Armenian element: in Trebizond Vilayet Moslem and Greek elements outweigh, 18; numerically inferior to the Greeks in the Trebizond Vilayet 46;
Armenian inhabitants: Turkish, Kurdish, Greek and -·- of the demilitarized zone, 37;
Armenian majority: prevention of the formation of an – by changing boundaries, 216;
Index of Ethnic and Religious groups
292
Armenian people: immediate ethnic distribution of, 73; outrageous and brutal persecutions of -·- in the past fifty years, 74; President Wilson’s eagerness to serve the best interests of, 41; recognition of all the legitimate claims of, 121;
Armenian population[s]: future economic well-being of the Turkish, Kurdish, Greek, Armenian, or Yezidi, 45; relative increase in, 73; strictest possible justice toward the populations, whether Turkish, Kurdish, Greek or, 42;
Austro-Hungarian[s]: Turks made common cause with Germans and, 134.
Azerbaijani: northern boundaries between the Armenians, -·-, and the Georgians, 70;
B Bulgarian[s]: free port for, 115. C Chaldaean Christian[s]: 1% of the pre-war
population of the future Armenian State, 71. Christian:
Greek portion of -·- minority, 46; Hellenic cooperation with another -·- people, 181; Minority Treaty (August 10, 1920) for the protection of -·- non-Armenian groups, 75; moral stamina of Moslem and -·- inhabitants, 74; Moslem and -·- elements of the new state of Armenia, 42; population in the minority and all unarmed, 29; sufferings of Turkish, Tartar and -·- elements, 73.
Christian[s] (see also Syrian Christians; Nestorian Christians):
armed Moslem population hostile to, 29; banditry against Moslems and, 28; miscellaneous -·- in the Sandjaks of Kharput and Dersim, 160, 161; Moslem majority over, 72; total number in the Vilayet of Diarbekir, 156;
G Georgian[s]:
boundaries between Russian Armenia and, 7;
in boundary negotiations with Armenia, 19; Lazes and Ajars, no sympathies towards, 104; Lazes, related to, 22; boundaries between the Armenians and, 70; troops of, 230.
German[s]: Turks made common cause with -·- and Austro-Hungarians, 134.
Greek[s] (see also Greek, elements, inhabitants,
people, population, Pontic Greeks): among total pre-war population of the future Armenian state, 71; bands of Turkish irregulars created and supported with money stolen from, 184; Christians (Armenians and -·-) in the area which will be the Armenian State, 72; citizenship composed of Turks, Kurds, -·-, Kizilbashis, Lazes as well as Armenians, 43; conflicting territorial desires of Armenians, Turks, Kurds and, 43; in Sandjaks of Kharput, Dersim, (1891), 160; in the Kaza of Kharput, according to Cuinet, 161; in the Sandjak of Gumush-khana, in the Vilayet of Trebizond, 25; inhabitants of the Sandjak of Djanik and the Vilayet of Kastamuni, 24; justice to the Turks and -·- in Trebizond subordinate to interests of Armenia, 47; Mr. Venizelos, on behalf of -·- of Trebizond region, 122; of Trebizond Vilayet, according to the American Commission to Negotiate Peace, 188; of Trebizond Vilayet, according to Turkish estimates, 188; opposition from the Greek Government or the Anatolian, 172; participation in the expedition against the Bolsheviks, 184; portion (18%) of -·- in Trebizond Vilayet, 22; portion of the Christian minority in the Trebizond Vilayet, 46; Provisional Government composed of members belonging to -·- nationality, 186; rendering life intolerable to, 185; Smyrna and a zone administered by -·- under the Sultan's suzerainty, 116;
Index of Ethnic and Religious groups
293
The ethnic consideration, in the case of a population originally so complexly intermingled, is further beclouded by the terrible results of the massacres and deportations of Armenians and Greeks, and by the dreadful losses also suffered by the Moslem inhabitants through refugee movements and the scourge of typhus and other diseases. The limitation of the arbitral, 42; Trebizond, containing a population of 360,000, 177; within a year after the establishment of the new Armenian state, 3%, 73; words of the Governor General: We took this country from, 186.
Greek element[s]: Moslem and -·- outweigh the Armenian in Trebizond Vilayet, 18; Turkish, Laz and -·- of the indigenous population, 192.
Greek inhabitants: Laz and -·- inhabitants of the coastal region of the Black Sea, 49; Turkish, Kurdish, Armenian and -·- inhabitants of the demilitarized zone, 37;
Greek people: able to rise once more and to effect their unity, 181;
Greek population: adequate access to the sea for the entire population, Turkish, Kurdish, -·-, Armenian, 45; estimates for the -·- of Trebizond Vilayet, 188; possible justice toward the populations, whether Turkish, Kurdish, -·- or Armenian, 42.
I Indian[s] (British): British forces in Persia,
chiefly Persian Cossacks and, 231. K Kizilbashi[s]:
80,000 non-Moslem, 155; citizenship of the Armenian Republic, composed of Greeks, -·-, Lazes and others, 43; in the Sandjaks of Kharput and Dersim, 160, 161;
Kurd[s]: 10% of the pre-war Moslem population, 71; 25,000 Nomadic -·- in the Vilayet of Diarbekir, 155; 30,000 Sedentary -·- in the Vilayet of Diarbekir, 155; 400,000 -·- resident in the area of the four vilayets, 83; 8,000 -·- in the Kaza of Kharput, 161; 95,000 -·- in the province of Kharput, 155; aims of -·- allied to those of the Armenians, 83; Armenians, -·-, Turks and other inhabitants of Kurdish districts, 37; citizenship of the Armenian Republic, composed of Turks, -·-, Greeks and others, 43; conflicting territorial desires of Armenians, Turks, -·- and Greeks, 43; ethnographic distribution of Armenians, -·-, and Turks by sandjaks, 17; granting independence to, 185; ill-treatment by Turks, 179; in the Sandjaks of Hakkiari and Sairt, 18; in the Sandjaks of Kharput and Dersim, 160, 161; leaving the high lying valley of Bashkala to, 108; majority of -·- desire to be independent of Turkey, 83; of the Sandjak of Arghana, 162; political relationship of -·- toward the Turks, 71; possibility of attack from, 83; possibility of independence for, 83; pre-war population of the future Armenian state, including Turks, -·- and Tartars, 71; racially more akin to the Armenians than to the Anatolian peasantry, 72; Turks, -·- and Tartars in the future Armenian state, 73.
L Laz[s]:
about 6% among the population in the new Armenian state, 73; among the elements of the indigenous population, 192; among the pre-war population of the future
Index of Ethnic and Religious groups
294
Armenian state, 71; Greek and -·- inhabitants of the coastal region of the Black Sea, 49; Moslems of the two races of Turks and, 22; Moslems, including -·- , held a majority over the Christians, 72; no reason for special regime for, 103; no sympathies towards Georgians, 104; other minorities more advanced then, 104; Turks, Kurds, Greeks, Kizilbashis, -·- and others, among the citizens of the Armenian Republic, 43;
M Mohammedan (see also Moslem[s],
Mussulmans, Moslem elements, etc.):
city of Kharput largely, 160; people materially assisted in the defeat of Turkey, 119.
Moslem element[s]: Greek and -·- outweigh the Armenian in Trebizond Vilayet, 18; population of Armenia about equally divided between Christian and, 42; successful establishment of Armenian state lies wedged to, 77;
Moslem inhabitants: losses suffered by -·- through the scourge of typhus and other diseases, 42; productive capacity of both Christian and, 74; Terrible losses also among -·- Turkish and Kurdish inhabitants, 16;
Moslem majority: over the Christians in the area which will be the Armenian State, 72; population of Trebizond Vilayet as incontestably, 45; Turkish claims based upon -·- as secondary to the economic welfare, 26;
Moslem population: armed -·- hostile to Christians and to the idea of a separate Armenia, 29; Armenia with mingled Christian and, 46; considerably increase of -·- under British tutelage, 79; Kerasun and Ordu with strong Turkish and, 48; Kurds comprising about 10% of the pre-war, 71;
Lazistan inhabited by a primitive, uncultivated, 104; losses of -·- proportionally almost equal to those of the Armenians, 17; pre-war population of Kharput as predominantly, 159; protection of citizens of the Republic of Armenia from, 27; successful establishment of Armenian state lies wedged to, 77.
Moslem soldiers: legions to be made up of local Non-Moslem and, 36.
Moslem subject[s]: all -·- of Turkey hostile to the creation of the Armenian Republic, 29;
Moslems: Kharput as an important cultural centre for the Turks and other, 159; Number of -·- in the Vilayet of Diarbekir, 155; equal number of -·- who will continue to live within Armenian borders, 74; among the total pre-war population of the future Armenian state, 71; Armenian consent to take all necessary measures in relation to, 206; Turks and Lazes consist remaining 79% of, 22; banditry prevails against -·- as well as Christians, 28; possible Christian reprisals against, 29; warning against any possible reprisals against, 74; protection of -·- and the remaining Christian non-Armenian groups, 75; maximum of 750,000 -·- of various races in Armenia, 155; Armenian minority in the Sandjaks of Kharput and Dersim compared with the combined, 161; in the Vilayet of Trebizond, according to Turkish estimates, 188; refugee movements of -·- consequent upon the Russian military advance, 17; Pontic Greeks claim on -·- of the Vilayet of Trebizond, 188; in the Vilayet of Trebizond, according estimates made for American Commission to Negotiate Peace, 188.
Mussulmans (see also Moslems): great number of -·- have retained their Greek speech, 183;
Index of Ethnic and Religious groups
295
attaching portions of an Armenian province to adjoining provinces inhabited by, 216.
N Near Eastern peoples: Armenian undoubted
powers of leadership among, 75. Nestorian Christian[s]:
among the population of the Great Zab River, 44; in the Sandjaks of Hakkiari and Sairt, by number, 18; in the Sandjaks of Hakkiari and Sairt, by percentage, 18.
non-Armenian: abandoning of all claims to certain -·- regions, 219; avoiding introduction of too many -·- elements into Armenian territory, 101; protection of the Moslems and the remaining Christian -·- groups, 75; providing of adequate faculties to Armenian nationals of -·- speech, 205; provisions for -·- racial and religious groups embodied in the Minorities Treaty, 49.
non-Christian[s]: miscellaneous -·- in the Vilayet of Diarbekir, 156; possession of arms by every, 28.
non-Moslem: 80,000 -·- Kizilbashis, 155; legions to include both -·- and Moslem soldiers, 36.
non-Turkish: populations obliged to pay more taxes, 234.
O Ofli[s], Crypto-Christian Greeks, originally from
Of[f] district: among the Moslem population of Trebizond, 188.
Ottomans (see also Turks): special guarantees granted to -·- at Adrianople, 115;
P Pole[s]:
95,000 -·- against the Bolshevist forces, 230; Bolshevist attempt to recoup its reputation against, 81.
Pontian population (see also Pontic Greeks): urgent steps in order to save -·- from utter destruction, 187.
Pontic Greek[s], Greeks of Pontus, of the Euxine Pontus (see also Greek[s], Greek, elements, inhabitants, people, population):
Armenian delegation’s consent to the wishes of, 24; bulk of the population of Pontus is of -·- descent, 183; claims for Crypto-Greeks, 188; claims for independence or at least autonomy, 190; claims of (map), 242; claims of, (map), 95; demands of -·- for immediate autonomy, 23; desire as secondary to the economic welfare of the Kurdish, Turkish and Armenian population, 26; desire for a small independent Republic, 23; desire of -·- for unity under Turkish sovereignty, 24; Greeks of -·- (Appendix 5/6), 188; memorandum of -·- submitted to President Wilson, 45; national claims of, 189; ought not to be divided between Turkey and Armenia, 190; petition of, [July 10,1920] (Appendix 5/5), 93; petition to the Supreme Council and President Wilson, 24; population Estimates for Trebizond Vilayet (Appendix 5/6), 93; possible Armenian renunciation of Tireboli and Trebizond for, 164; possible split of -·- between Armenia and Turkey, 23; question of -·- and the Armenian sea terminal, 25; renewed opportunity for independence, 23; representatives of several organizations of, 190; situation of the unredeemed -·- of the Euxine Pontus, 182; unity and autonomy desired by, 45.
S Starviotes, Crypto-Christian Greeks, originally
from Stavrioti village: among the Moslem population of Trebizond, 188.
Index of Ethnic and Religious groups
296
Surmenite, Cryoto-Christian Greeks, originally from Surmena district: among the Moslem population of Trebizond, 188.
Syrian Christians: in the province of Kharput, 155; in the Sandjak of Arghana, 162.
T Tartar[s]:
Bolshevist massacre of several thousand, 81; boundaries between Russian Armenia, the Georgians and the Azerbaidjan, 7; lesser number of -·- will return to future Armenia, 73; Persian control over -·- of northwest Persia, 82; sufferings of Turkish and -·- elements, 73; tremendous losses of the Turkish and -·- populations by war casualties, 72; Turks, Kurds and -·- among pre-war population, 71.
Turks: 160,000 Greeks were deported from their homes by, 183; alleged ill-treatment of -·- by, 178; arguments for the retention of -·- at Constantinople, 119; attitude of Anatolian -·- towards Kurdish Mohammedanism, 72; citizenship of the Armenian Republic composed of -·-, Kurds, Armenians, etc., 43; conflicting territorial desires of Armenians, -·-, Kurds, etc., 43; controversies between the Persians and -·- regarding the village of Kotur, 226; country surrounding Trebizond comprised а very large number оf Turks, 178; despite the eagerness to do justice to -·- and Greeks in Trebizond, 47; districts inhabited by, 235; Draft Treaty handed to, 165, 191; ethnographic distribution of Armenians, Kurds, and -.- by sandjaks, 17; ethnographical and political reasons for not depriving -·- of a district, 100; granting the same consideration to, 134; have submitted to the Treaty of Sèvres, 165; ill-treatment of Mahomedans by, 179;
in the Kaza of Kharput, 161; in the Sandjak of Arghana, 162; inadvisable to add to Armenia a region with majority of, 162; intention of the Allies that the anomaly of -·- in Europe should cease, 119; Kharput as an important cultural centre for, 159; Kharput Province had a population of 168,000 Armenians, as against 102,000, 155; Kurds, -·-, and Tartars, among the pre-war population, 71; large number of -·- in the country surrounding Trebizond, 23; Lazes having little feeling of loyalty to, 22; lesser number of -·- and Tartars will return to the Armenian state, 73; need for protection for Armenians and many of the Kurds and, 37; not entitled to maintain troops in the Hinterland of Trebizond, 104; number of -·- in the Sandjaks of Hakkiari and Sairt, 18; number of -·- in the Sandjaks of Kharput and Dersim, according to Armenian Delegation, 160; number of -·- in the Sandjaks of Kharput and Dersim, according to American Peace Delegation, 161; Number of -·- in the Vilayet of Diarbekir, 155; one portion of the port Smyrna will be set apart for, 116; original name of Armenia College was suppressed by, 154; outcry when the Treaty is handed to, 130; parts of the provinces of Van, Bitlis, Erzerum and Trebizond, which -·- still hold, 138; percentage of -·- in the Sandjaks of Hakkiari and Sairt, 18; political relationship of the Kurds toward, 71; population of the Trebizond Vilayet, mainly of the two races of -·- and Lazes, 22; province of Erzerum called Ermenistan (Armenia) by, 217; setting up of Greek sovereignty over part of Thrace not left to, 115; since their coming -·- have spread poverty, ruin and desolation, 185;
Index of Ethnic and Religious groups
297
still hold provinces of Van, Bitlis, Erzerum and Trebizond, 9; Treaty [of Sevres] to be handed -·- on May 10th, 127; true -·- among the Trebizond Moslems, 188; will not give it up without fierce fighting, 130; withdrawal of the troops by, 105.
Y Yezidi[s]:
future economic well-being of Turkish, Kurdish, Greek, Armenian, or -·- population, 45; remaining 1% was composed of -·-, Chaldaean Christians, Russians, 71, 73.
298
Subject Index A Allied Powers (see also Principal Allied
Powers): 4, 7, 8, 16, 28, 29, 41, 51, 52, 79, 80, 132, 133, 190, 209, 210.
Allied and Associated Powers (see also Allied Powers; Principal Allied Powers): 106, 112, 207. Ambassador(s):
American, 8, 9, 51, 133; British, 201; French, 4, 91, 118, 202; Italian, 202; Japanese, 202
American: areas, 69; assistance, 131; capitalists, 174; citizens, 123; Commissioner, 223; companies, 174; Consuls, 10, 159; corporations, 123; expert testimony, 22; Government, 6, 134, 135, 137, 138, 139, 142, 143; mandate, 8; military observers, 73; missionaries, 178; note, 131, 133; organizations, 14; point of view, 25; representative, 97; wheat, 223; withdrawal, 8.
American Board of Commissioners for Foreign Missions: 152. American Commission to Negotiate Peace: 2, 10, 188. American Committee for the Independence of Armenia: 152. American Embassy in Paris: 150.
American Euphrates College (originally Armenia Collage): 154. American Peace Delegation: 18, 161. American Recognition of Armenia (Apr 23, 1920): 91. American Trade Commissioner: 173. Arbitral:
assignment, 42; competence, 41; decision, 3, 4, 8, 9, 40, 43; jurisdiction, 45.
Arbitration: 2, 3, 7, 52, 90, 102, 139, 165, 213, 218, 219.
Armenia America Society: 152. Armenian:
affairs, 140; aspirations, 71; attempt, 83; border, 48, 83 (see also Turkish-Armenian border); boundary, 34; cause, 142; claim(s), 44, 95, 166, 242; colleges, 154; contention, 159; control, 26; cultural centre, 154; delegation (see also Armenian National Delegation, Armenian Peace Delegation), 13, 24, 93, 160, 218, 219, 222, 224; delegations, 47, 95, 99, 151, 242; desiderata, 150; desires, 230; finance, 242; financial experts, 89; forces, 74, 82; frontier(s) (see also Turkish-Armenian Fron-tier), 7, 36, 37, 38, 49, 51, 53n, 67, 149, 226; Government, 34, 35, 140, 204, 205, 214; high schools, 154;
Subject Index
299
independence, 78, 85, 134; initiative, 76; land communications, 220; language, 205; leaders, 18, 145; loan, 142; majority, 216; mandate, 127, 131; manpower, 230; market, 44; military advisers, 161; Minister, 151; national(s), 204, 205, 206; note [handed to Gen. Harbord, Sep. 4, 1919] 218; occupation, 85, 230; origin, 154; outlet, 5; petition, 213, 215; problem, 85, 130; question, 14, 135; racial and religious groups, 49; refugees, 49, 73; regulars, 230; representative(s), 5, 181; request, 25; rights, 195; sea terminal, 25; side, 38, 39; speech, 205; standpoint, 231; statements, 232; success, 229; suzerainty, 5; traditions, 163; troops, 232; vessels, 209; wealth, 218.
Armenian Military Mission to the United States: 151. Armenian Minorities Treaty (Aug 10, 1920):
49, 75, 93, 199. Armenian National Delegation: 95, 150, 213, 242. Armenian Patriarchate: 155. Armenian Peace Delegation: 213. Armeno-Turkish boundary: 139. Armistice (with Turkey, Oct 30, 1918): 27, 73, 74. Assistant Foreign Trade Advisor: 241. Assistant Under-Secretary of State for India: 201.
Azerbaidjani representative: 96. B Bank:
Banque de Salonique, 171; Imperial Ottoman Bank, 171; National Bank of Turkey, 171;
Bolshevism: 82. Bolshevist:
control, 81; coup d’état, 85; fleet, 230; forces, 230; influence, 81; leaders, 81, 85; menace, 231; military aid, 81; military strength, 229; propaganda, 81; regime, 80, 81; reinforcements, 81; troops, 230.
Bolshevist-Azerbaidjanese troops: 82. Bolshevist-Tartar-Turkish attack: 80. Bolshevist-Tartar-Turkish opposition: 82. Boundary Commission (see also Commission for the Delimitation of the Boundaries of Armenia): 12, 19, 30, 62, 64, 66, 99, 100, 101, 102, 103, 105, 106, 129, 131, 148. British:
control, 229; firm, 171; forces, 84, 85, 231; Foreign Office, 78; Government, 84; influence, 82, 84; institution, 171; interests, 171; line, 80; map(s), 11, 66, 146, 147, 148, 217; officers, 30; papers, 225; policy, 78; public, 78, 79; support, 79; tutelage, 79; War Office, 146n, 147.
Bulgarian representative: 115.
Subject Index
300
C Cis-Atlantic government: 137. Commission for the Delimitation of the Boundaries of Armenia (see also Boundary Commission): 99. Commission of Three: 82. Communist state (Azerbaidjan): 80. Composition of the Commission for the Delimitation of the Boundaries of Armenia: 98. Conference of Ambassadors (London, Jan, 1920): 129. Congress Hall Hotel: 125. Congress of Berlin (1878): 226. Consular agents: 208. Consuls-General: 208. Council of Ten: 23, 93, 177. D de facto:
government, 4, 5, 7n, 125; recognition, 96.
delimitation: 9, 48, 98, 99, 102, 125, 194, 216, 218, 227.
demilitarization: as object sought, 35; of the Turkish-Armenian boundary, 34; of Turkish areas, 15; of Turkish territory, 3, 8, 27, 41, 48, 51; successful, 35.
Department: of Commerce, 173; of State (see also State Department): 2, 118, 167, 196; of War, 11.
Division of Western Asia, American Commission to Negotiate Peace: 2, 10. Division of Near Eastern Affairs, Department of State: 2, 167. Draft Treaty (May 11, 1920): 165, 191, 237. Drafting Committee: 126. E Educational and Benevolent Societies of Harput: 152. Embassy of the:
French Republic to the USA, 113; United States in Paris, 52, 150, 166, 213.
Entente Powers: 185, 187.
Envoy Extraordinary and Minister Plenipotentiary at Berne (Turkish): 6. Expert Commission, London: see Inter-Allied Expert Commission. Ethnic:
claim, 18; consideration, 42, 218; distribution, 19, 42, 73, 188; elements, 70; factor; 72; grounds, 121.
F French:
Ambassador, 4, 91; area, 164n; authority, 159; capitalists, 174, 175; company, 169; expert testimony, 22; forces, 85; Government, 211; map(s), 146, 147, 148; schools, 154; support, 129; text, 211; troops, 231; withdrawal, 127.
G Georgian:
delegation, 99; frontier, 191; origin, 104; representative, 96; sympathies, 104; troops, 203.
German: interests, 174; intrigues, 174; map, 11, 146; procedure, 31; property, 116; school, 154; travelers, 75.
Greek: advance, 232; Chamber, 23, 189;
Subject Index
301
character, 184; claim, 188; commissioner, 189; descent, 183; desire, 23, 26; estimates, 188; Government, 172, 186; nationality, 186; occupation, 84; parliament, 93; portion, 46; shore, 115; sovereignty, 115; speech, 183; troops, 85.
H Harbord Mission: 12, 22, 147, 173;
Financial Expert, 241; Geographer, 2, 148; reports from, 10.
Hellenism: 180. High Commissioner(s):
for Australia, 201; for Canada, 201; for New Zealand, 201; for Union of South Africa, 201.
High Contracting Parties: 52, 139, 167, 191, 200. I Imperial Ottoman Bank: 171. Inter-Allied:
Committee, 97; Expert Commission (London) (see also Report of Inter-Allied Expert Commission), 4, 7, 129; Military Commissions, 231.
Italian Consul: 202. J Joint Armenian Council at Constantinople: 203. K Kurdish:
desire, 83; majority, 163.
L League of Nations: 20, 34, 35, 83, 102, 106, 115,
130, 135, 136, 141, 142, 192, 194, 195, 196, 207, 208, 209, 210;
as Commissioner or Warden: 35. Liberal Party (of Greece): 181. London Conference (Jan-Mar, 1920): 4, 19, 23,
45, 113, 116, 129. London Inter-Allied Commission of February 1920: 242 (see also Commission for the
Delimitation of the Boundaries of Armenia). London Times (newspaper): 227. M Majority:
Armenian, 214, 216; in the Trebizond Villayet, 45; Kurdish, 163; Moslem, 26, 72; of the Council of the League of Nations, 207; of Turks and Kurds, 162; Turkish, 22, 100.
map(s): authenticated, 66; available to Harbord Mission, 12; British, 66, 146, 147, 217; British War Office, 147-148; French, 147; General, of the four eastern vilayets of Turkish Armenia (Turkish, Russian, British, French, German), 11, 146; large-scale, on Turkish Armenian boundaries, 11, 53, 92, 102, 104, 106, 145, 146; Levassieur’s, 217; mineralogical, of Armenia, 218; of Armenia, 131, 213; of Asiatic Turkey, 217; of Europe by Treaty (book), 226; of the area of Free State of Batum, 106, 112; of the Demilitarized area, 112n; of the Eyalat of Erzerum, 218; of the Russo-Turkish frontier, 227; of the vilayet of Erzerum, 219; of the vilayet of Karout, 214; of Turkish-Armenia, large-scale, 11; Russian, 146 147, 228; Russian General Staff, 227; Topographical, 223; Turkish, 66, 147, 148; Turkish General Staff: 11, 12, 62n, 111.
Subject Index
302
Middle Eastern defensive policy: 79. Milli Teshkilat [“Organization of the Nation"]
(see also Turkish Nationalist party): 231. Military Inter-Allied Commission of Control
and Organization: 48, 49, 67. 165. Minister:
appointed (Armenian), 151; Commerce and Industry (French), 202; for Foreign Affairs (French), 202; of Finance (French), 202; of Public Works (Turkish), 170, 171, 172.
Ministry of Public Works (Turkish): 175. minority:
Christian, 29, 46; Armenian, 161, 162; rights, 183.
Mixed Anglo-Russian Commission: 227. N National Bank of Turkey (a British institution): 171. National League of the Euxine Pontus: 187. New York Times (newspaper): 81. Neutral Powers: 38, 48, 49, 67. non-Armenian:
groups, 75; regions, 219; speech, 205.
O Orange Book of the Russian Foreign Office:
155, 160. Ottoman:
administrative delimitation, 218; delegation, 182; Government, 221; Parliament, 174, 176; Public Debt, 88, 116, 233.
P Paris [Peace] Conference (1919-1920): 18, 23, 52, 95, 118, 149, 150, 156, 157, 158, 181, 182, 189, 242. Persian:
border, 17, 43,75, 148; Cosacks, 231; frontier, 108, 220 (see also Turko-Persian frontier); Government, 82;
rifles, 231; transit trade, 178.
Polish Treaty: 89. President of the Pan-Pontic Congress: 187. President of the United States of America (see also Wilson, Thomas Woodrow): 3, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 12, 13, 14, 15, 17, 21, 23, 24, 25, 37, 38, 40, 51, 52, 68, 85, 91, 93, 95, 118, 125, 126, 127, 131, 137, 138, 139, 144, 145, 149, 150, 151, 152, 153, 154, 157, 165, 166, 167, 177, 178, 180, 181, 182, 188, 190, 191, 213, 215, 217, 219, 222, 224, 225, 226, 227, 242. Prime Minister (Greek): 180. Principal Allied Powers (see also Allied Powers): 75, 83, 84, 118, 144, 145, 165, 166,
191, 200, 204, 208. Provisional Government (of Trebizond): 186. Q Quai d’Orsay (Ministry of Foreign Affairs of France): 177. R Religious:
affiliations, 11; beliefs, 41-42, 74-75; centers, 44; distribution, 42, 188; establishments, 206; groups, 49; institutions, 205; minorities, 205, 206; opinion, 183; purpose, 206; ties, 71.
Report and Proposals of the Commission for the Delimitation of the Boundaries of Armenia: 98. Report of Inter-Allied Expert Commission (London, Feb 24, 1920): 7. Report of London Technical Commission (Feb 24, 1920): 91, 95. Russian (see also Russian Armenia, etc.):
advance, 17, 73, 76, 77, 78, 85; anarchy, 184; army, 104, 186; authorities, 186; Bolshevist troops, 230; border, 169; campaigns, 77;
Subject Index
303
capital, 175; Duma, 228; forces, 75; Foreign Office, 155, 160; Government, 78, 175; Influence, 78; map, 11, 146, 147, 228; occupation, 77, 86; political tradition, 78; Representation, 120; retreat, 186; Revolution, 78; Staff, 227; system, 76; troops, 76.
Russian-Persian tariffs: 172. Russo-Persian frontier: 108, 217. Russo-Turkish frontier: 107, 217, 219. S Salname (official Almanac of the Ottoman
Government): 146, 216. San Remo Conference (Apr, 1920): 4, 5, 51, 126, 129, 130, 132, 149. Secretary General of the League of Nations: 210. Secretary of State of the United States of America: 4, 5, 6, 8, 9, 21, 25, 68, 113, 117, 125, 135, 136, 150, 151, 152, 153, 177, 2101, 213. Senate (of the United States): 6. Social Revolutionists: 229. Soviet Government: 229. State Department (see also Department of
State): 1, 8, 149, 159, 227. Sublime Porte [Bab-I Ali, High Porte, the
Government of Ottoman Empire]: 227. Supreme Council (of the Allied Powers): 4, 5, 7, 14, 21, 24, 40, 41, 45, 51, 77, 79, 96, 116, 122, 123, 134, 135, 136, 137, 138, 139, 140, 141, 142, 143, 144, 165, 182, 190, 191. T Temporary Secretary and Treasurer of the Armenia America Society, Riggs Ernest W.: 152. Temporary Secretary and Treasurer of the Armenia America Society: 152. Transcaucasian Railway(s): 75, 172. Treaty between Georgia and Soviet Russia (Nay 7, 1920): 81, 196.
Treaty of Berlin (1878): 145, 195, 227. Treaty of Erzeroom (Limits between Turkey and
Persia, 1847): 224. Treaty of San Stefano (1878): 145, 227. Treaty of Sevres [Aug 10, 1920] (see also Turkish Treaty): 6, 7, 9, 24, 26, 28, 36, 38, 41, 44, 45, 48, 53n, 62n, 66, 67, 80, 84, 93n, 148, 149, 152, 162-163, 165, 166, 192, 195, 196, 198, 231, 242. Tripartite Convention [between British Empire, France and Italy, Aug 10, 1920]: 71, 78, 95, 164n, 242. Turco-Persian Frontier Commission: 53n, 226. Turkish:
aggression, 171; army, 27, 36, 165, 187; authorities, 187; bonds, 233; brigands, 184; claim, 26; constitution, 6; control, 26, 83; courts, 30; debt, 235, 236, 237; delegates, 113, 183; domination, 72, 83; estimates, 188; Gendarmerie, 29; Government, 21, 27, 34, 35, 118, 119, 146, 169, 171, 174, 175, 216, 231; irregulars, 184; large-scale map, 147; majority, 163; majority, 22; maps, 147, 148; menace, 158; nationalists, 14, 27, 77, 83, 230; negotiations, 133; opposition, 71; oppression, 184; party, 84; persecutions, 183; portion, 237; pounds, 170, 171; power, 119, problem, 187; refugees, 49; regime, 234; re-occupation, 186;
Subject Index
304
revenues, 237; rule, 102, 104; shore, 115, side, 29, 39; sovereignty, 24; Sultan, 114, suzerainty, 21; system, 233, 238; troops, 105, 114, 232; tyranny, 134; zone, 105.
Turkish Armenian border: 27. Turkish Armenian boundaries: 11. Turkish Armenian Boundary Decision: 3. Turkish Armenian frontiers: 7, 31, 35. Turkish Armenian relations: 21. Turkish General Staff map: 11, 12, 62, 66, 111,
146. Turkish Nationalist forces: 232. Turkish Nationalist Party (see also Milli Teshkilat): 231. Turkish Persian frontier: 227; Turkish Treaty [of Peace], (Aug 10, 1920) (see also Treaty of Sevres), 4, 5, 7, 8, 9n, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 19, 20, 23, 24, 25, 29, 37, 38, 42, 49, 51, 52, 67, 71, 78, 82, 83, 84, 88, 103, 113, 118, 123, 124, 127, 129, 130, 131, 132, 133, 134, 138, 139, 140, 141, 145, 146, 165, 180, 181, 182, 183, 189, 191, 192, 196, 200, 204, 208, 209, 210, 211, 213, 214, 215, 217, 219, 231, 233, 237.
Turko Persian frontier (see also Persian border, frontier): 7, 53, 53n, 108, 227.
Turko-Persian Frontier Commission: 226. Typhus mortality: 73. U United States:
contribution in, 87; Embassy of, 52; French Embassy to, 113; Government, 7, 9, 24, 89, 119, 120, 121, 122, 123, 125, 132, 135, 239; independence, 68; President, see Wilson, Thomas Woodrow, President of the United States of America; representative, 115; request, 127; seal, 68; Secretary, see Secretary of State of the United States of America; Colby, Bainbridge; Treasury, 241.
V Vice-Consuls: 208. W War Department: 11. White House: 50, 149, World War (One): 77, 78.
305
